SC Strikes Down 3-Month Adoption Bar for Maternity Leave, Urges Paternity Leave Law

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan observed that the object of maternity benefits is intrinsically linked to motherhood. In this context, adoptive mothers of children above three months are similarly situated to those adopting younger infants, as both require time for bonding, caregiving and adjustment, the Court noted.

Denying benefits based solely on the child's age creates an artificial and unreasonable classification, it reasoned. The Court further noted that the provision fails to account for the significant emotional, psychological and practical adjustments that accompany adoption, irrespective of the child's age.

"For all the foregoing reasons, we have concluded that Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code, insofar as it puts an age limit of three months on the age of the adoptive child, for the adoptive mothers to avail maternity benefit under the 2020 Code, is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution respectively.

Therefore, the sub-section (4) of Section 60 of the 2020 Code should now be meaningfully read as:-'(4) A woman who legally adopts a child or a commissioning mother shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of twelve weeks from the date the child is handed over to the adopting mother or the commissioning mother, as the case may be", the Court noted in the judgement.

The Court, in its judgement, has also urged the Centre to bring a law that recognises Paternity leave to grant the benefit of its ruling to adoptive fathers. While doing so, the Court emphasised that the absence of adequate paternity leave reinforces traditional gender roles in parenting and deprives fathers of a meaningful opportunity to participate in early childcare. It was observed that when fathers are given leave, they can support mothers, share household and caregiving responsibilities and remain emotionally present during a critical phase.

The Court also noted that paternity leave promotes gender equality, encourages active fatherhood and serves the best interests of the child by enabling both parents to contribute to the child's development. While existing provisions under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules provide limited paternity leave of 15 days for biological or adoptive fathers, the Court acknowledged that such recognition remains minimal. It also took note of recent legislative efforts, such as a private member's bill proposing extended paternity leave.

Pertinently, the Court noted that a child, regardless of being a born in a household or adopted by a couple, suffers from the absence of his/her father, if not at the beginning, when the child is in infancy (as they are unaware of law on paternity leave), but certainly, at later stages of life in their relationship with the father.

"Before we part, we would like to pen that a child who is born or adopted does not know what the law has decided about presence of the father, nor does the child understand how the law values paternity leave. The child, in all likelihood, experiences the presence or absence of closeness, and the depth or shallowness of the bond, simply as the natural state of things between them. It does not know that the slightest distance it feels is not reflective of the care or affection that exists. The realisation that one of its parents arrived a little late to the story because the law required him to be present at work is something the child may never consciously know, yet the quiet cost of that absence is later reflected in their relationship", the Court said.

"In light of the aforesaid discussion on the need of paternity leave, we urge the Union to come up with a provision recognising paternity leave as a social security benefit. We emphasise 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", it added.

- ANI