Parmod Kumar
New Delhi, Mar 17 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a provision of the Social Security Code, 2020 that limited maternity benefits for adoptive mothers to cases where the adopted child was below three months of age, holding the restriction to be arbitrary and violative of the right to equality under Article 14.
The Court found that adoptive mothers, irrespective of the age of the child – below three months or above three months – perform similar roles and responsibilities, and that the needs of an adopted child are no different from those of a biological child.
A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed that the law created an artificial classification between adoptive mothers based solely on the age of the adopted child, without any reasonable justification. It noted that the objective of maternity benefits is linked to caregiving and integration of the child into the family, rather than the biological process of childbirth.
Pronouncing the judgment, Justice Pardiwal said, “The distinction drawn by sub-section (4) of Section 60 does not have a rational nexus with the object of the 2020 Code. The object of maternity benefit is not associated with the process of childbirth but with the process of motherhood. The purpose of maternity protection does not vary with the manner in which the child is brought into the life of the beneficiary mother. Insofar as the roles, responsibilities, and caregiving obligations are concerned, women who adopt a child aged three months or above are similarly situated to women who adopt a child below the age of three months.”
Underscoring that the paramountcy in the adoption is the best interest of the child, Justice Pardiwala further said, “In matters affecting a child, paramount consideration must be given to best interests of the child. This consideration does not conclude with the completion of the formalities of adoption or the handing over of the custody, rather it continues throughout the period the child remains a child, more particularly, the period during which the child integrates into the adoptive family. The true fulfilment of the child’s welfare lies in enabling the child to meaningfully adjust, bond, and flourish within the family environment.”
The Court also took into account the practical realities of adoption in India, pointing out that in most cases, a child is declared legally free for adoption only after crossing the age of three months. As a result, the restriction rendered the provision largely ineffective and deprived a significant number of adoptive mothers of maternity benefits.
Terming Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code as illusory and devoid of practical application, the judgment said, “When sub-section (4) of Section 60 of the 2020 Code is examined through one another angle, the provision turns out to be incapable of practical implementation, as it cannot fully achieve the purpose for which it has been enacted. With regard to the time required to declare a child legally free for adoption, by the time such declaration is made, the child is unlikely to be of less than three months old. Thus, the age limit renders the provision illusory and devoid of practical application.”
Holding that the provision failed to meet the test of reasonable classification, the Court read down Section 60(4) and expanded its scope. It ruled that all adoptive mothers, as well as commissioning mothers, would be entitled to maternity benefits for a period of 12 weeks from the date the child is handed over to them.
The judgment further emphasised that reproductive autonomy is not confined to biological motherhood and includes the decision to form a family through adoption. It noted that the law must recognise the emotional, psychological and practical adjustments involved in adoptive parenting, particularly in cases involving older children or special needs.
“The process of adjustment and integration within the adoptive family, both for the parents as well as the child, remains substantially the same irrespective of the age of the child. The impugned classification overlooks the significant emotional, psychological, and practical adjustments required, of the adoptive parents and the adopted child, more particularly, in cases involving children with disabilities or single adoptive mothers”, the judgment said.
The Court underlined that the welfare and best interests of the child remain paramount even after the adoption process is completed and that the initial period of integration into the family requires support for both the child and the parent.
The ruling came on a petition challenging the earlier provision under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which had been carried forward into the Social Security Code, 2020. The Court allowed the challenge and directed that the benefit be made available uniformly, removing the age-based restriction.
The Court also indicated the need for broader policy consideration, including recognition of paternity leave, to ensure a more balanced approach to caregiving responsibilities.
The court urged the Central government to come out with a provision recognising paternity leave as a social security benefit, emphasising that the duration of such leave must be determined in a manner that is responsive to the needs of both the parent and the child.
