On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a provision that restricted maternity leave for adoptive mothers only to those adopting children below three months of age. The ruling not only removes a long-standing legal anomaly but also sends a strong message about inclusivity and fairness in caregiving.

While holding that, irrespective of the child’s age, all adoptive mothers will be entitled to 12 weeks of leave from the date of adoption, the court remarked that the provision was discriminatory both for the mother and child.

"Adoption is an equally meaningful pathway for creating a family…biological factors cannot exclusively determine familial values and entitlements,” the SC bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said.

The court also nudged the Union government to think beyond maternity benefits.

Also Read | 'Adoption is an equally meaningful pathway’: SC tears down age cap on maternity leave— here’s all you need to know

SC removes child age limit for adoption leave

At the heart of the judgment was a constitutional challenge to Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020. The bench ruled that the age-based classification in the law was “discriminatory” and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

“A mother cannot be differentiated between one who brings home a child less than three months and one who adopts a child of a higher age,” the court held.

Going a step further, the court expanded the constitutional understanding of parenthood itself. It observed that reproductive autonomy is not limited to biological birth, thereby recognising adoption as an equally valid and protected form of parenthood.

“The paramount consideration has to be the best interest of the child…including the period required for the child to integrate into the new family,” the bench said.

Also Read | What happens to your money after death? Supreme Court raises questions

The court noted that denying maternity leave in cases where children are older than three months not only disadvantages adoptive mothers but also undermines the developmental needs of the child.

Notably, the ruling came in response to a petition filed by Karnataka-based lawyer Hamsaanandini Nanduri, who had challenged the provision as arbitrary and exclusionary.

The Centre, represented by additional solicitor general KM Nataraj, had defended the provision. However, the court had agreed in December 2025 to examine its validity after the 2020 Code came into force, replacing the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, while retaining the same restriction.