ADOPTED CHILD IS NO DIFFERENT FROM BIOLOGICAL CHILD; REPRODUCTIVE AUTONOMY EXTENDS BEYOND BIOLOGICAL BIRTH: SUPREME COURT:

The Supreme Court has struck down Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, declaring it unconstitutional to the extent that it restricted maternity benefits for adoptive mothers only to cases where the adopted child was below three months of age. In a significant judgment delivered on March 17, 2026, a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that the right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution is not limited to the biological act of giving birth. The court observed that adoption constitutes an equal and equally meaningful exercise of reproductive and decisional autonomy. It further clarified that an adopted child is no different from a biological or so-called “natural” child, with the only distinction being that the process of adoption is more visible and formally acknowledged under the law.

The bench emphasized that women adopting a child aged three months or older are similarly situated to those adopting younger infants. In all matters concerning a child, the paramount consideration must be the best interests of the child. This principle does not end with the completion of adoption formalities or the handing over of custody. Instead, it continues throughout the child’s minority, particularly during the crucial period of integration into the adoptive family. The true welfare of the child lies in enabling meaningful adjustment, bonding, and flourishing within the new family environment.

The court pointed out that the three-month age limit in the provision was practically unworkable. By the time a child is declared legally free for adoption, they are often already older than three months, rendering the benefit illusory for most adoptive mothers. The bench noted that the impugned provision failed the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 and infringed upon the right to a dignified life under Article 21 for both adoptive mothers and adopted children.

The petition, filed under Article 32 by advocate Hamsaanandini Nanduri, an adoptive mother, originally challenged a similar provision in the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which was later subsumed into the Code on Social Security, 2020. The petitioner argued that denying maternity leave of 12 weeks to mothers adopting children above three months created an arbitrary and discriminatory classification, undermining the welfare-oriented purpose of the legislation.

The court observed that motherhood and maternity protection are basic human rights that cannot be narrowly confined to biological reproduction or the age of the child. When family structures and modes of parenthood evolve, constitutional rights must extend to diverse ways of building a family, including adoption. Non-biological modes of parenthood are no less legitimate or meaningful, and the decision to adopt may stem from personal, social, or humanitarian reasons. Maternity benefits are essential to support the mother during the critical phase of emotional, psychological, and practical integration of the child, needs that are often greater in the case of older children or those with disabilities.

In its concluding directions, the Supreme Court read down and substituted the provision to state that a woman who legally adopts a child, or a commissioning mother, shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of 12 weeks from the date the child is handed over to the adopting or commissioning mother. The court also urged the Union Government to introduce a provision for paternity leave as a social security benefit, with its duration calibrated to the needs of both parent and child.

The petition was accordingly allowed. The judgment reinforces that adoptive motherhood deserves equal constitutional protection and that the law must prioritize the welfare and dignity of both the child and the family, irrespective of how the family is formed.