Hamsaanandini Nanduri vs. Union of India (2026)

Case Details

Case Name: Hamsaanandini Nanduri vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Bench: J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 246

Date of Judgement: 17th March 2026

Introduction

The case of Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India concerned the constitutional validity of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and subsequently Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020. The provisions granted twelve weeks of maternity benefit to a woman who legally adopted a child below three months of age but excluded adoptive mothers whose children were three months or older. The petitioner challenged this classification as violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, particularly on the grounds of equality, reproductive autonomy, dignity, and the welfare of the adopted child.

“Not flesh of my flesh, nor bone of my bone,

But still miraculously my own.

Never forget for a single minute,

You didn’t grow under my heart, but in it.”

~Fleur Conkling Heyliger

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Hamsaanandini Nanduri, was an adoptive mother of two children and approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the restriction placed on maternity benefits available to adoptive mothers under Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as amended by the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017.

Under the existing law, an adoptive mother could claim twelve weeks of maternity benefit only when the child adopted was below three months of age. This meant that a woman adopting a child who had already crossed three months would not receive the same statutory benefit.

The petitioner was aggrieved by this distinction because, in an adoption, the responsibilities of a mother do not depend upon whether the child is just below or above three months of age. Once a child enters a new family, the mother has to adjust to the child and provide care, attention and emotional support.

The matter continued even after the new Social Security Code came into force. On 12 December 2025, the Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to amend her petition and challenge Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code, which had replaced the earlier provision in relation to maternity benefits.

The case was ultimately heard by the Supreme Court of India, before Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the three-month age limit prescribed under Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 is constitutionally valid, or whether it creates an unreasonable and discriminatory classification between adoptive mothers who adopt children below three months and those who adopt children aged three months or above, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the three-month age restriction violates the right to reproductive autonomy of an adoptive mother and the right of the adopted child to holistic care and development under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Arguments of the Parties

• Arguments of the Petitioner:

1. The petitioner argued that Section 60(4) creates an unreasonable classification among adoptive mothers by making maternity benefits dependent upon whether the adopted child is below three months of age. According to her, there is no meaningful difference between a woman adopting a child who is two months old and one adopting a child who is four months old, so far as the responsibilities of motherhood are concerned.
2. She contended that the three-month cut-off has no rational connection with the purpose of maternity benefits. Maternity protection is intended to enable a mother to care for and bond with the child, and these needs do not disappear once an adopted child crosses the age of three months.
3. The petitioner further submitted that the provision fails to account for the actual adoption process. Adoption of orphaned, abandoned or surrendered children involves statutory procedures under the Juvenile Justice Act and the CARA Regulations, which may take considerable time. Consequently, by the time the child is legally placed with the adoptive mother, the three-month limit may already have expired.
4. She argued that the restriction could adversely affect working women who choose to adopt, as the denial of maternity leave may force them to immediately return to their professional responsibilities at a time when the child requires substantial care and adjustment.
5. The petitioner also contended that the provision affects not only the mother but also the adopted child’s right to proper care and integration into the new family. The initial period after adoption is important for establishing emotional security and a sense of belonging.

• Arguments of the Respondent:

1. The Union of India defended Section 60(4) and argued that the provision should be understood as part of the overall maternity-benefit scheme under the Code rather than considered in isolation.
2. The respondents disputed the claim that the adoption process necessarily takes so long that the three-month limit becomes meaningless. They pointed out that District Magistrates and Additional District Magistrates had been given powers to issue adoption orders, which could help expedite the process.
3. They further submitted that where an adoptive mother adopts a child who is more than three months old, she could still access crèche facilities available at her establishment under Section 67 of the 2020 Code.
4. The Union argued that the three-month distinction was reasonable, as younger children generally have greater dependence upon their caregivers, particularly with respect to continuous feeding, sleeping regulation and immediate parental bonding.
5. Finally, the respondents maintained that the provision represented a balance between the interests of adoptive mothers and the concerns of employers. They argued that the restriction satisfied the proportionality principle and was consistent with the broader statutory scheme.

Judgement

The Supreme Court allowed the petition and held that the distinction drawn by Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 between adoptive mothers based on the age of the adopted child was constitutionally unsustainable. The Court found that the classification “does not have a rational nexus with the object of the 2020 Code.”

Reasoning of the Court

1. The Court emphasised that the “object of maternity benefit is not associated with the process of childbirth but with the process of motherhood.” Therefore, the purpose of maternity protection does not vary depending upon the manner in which a child comes into the life of the beneficiary mother.
2. The Court observed that adoptive mothers who adopt children below three months and those who adopt children aged three months or above are similarly situated insofar as their roles, responsibilities and caregiving obligations are concerned. The mere age of the adopted child cannot, by itself, justify denying maternity benefits to one category.
3. The Court further held that the process of adjustment and integration within the adoptive family remains substantially the same irrespective of the age of the child. Adoption requires significant emotional, psychological and practical adjustments for both the adoptive parents and the child.
4. The Court also considered whether the provision was practically workable. The adoption of orphaned, abandoned or surrendered children involves a procedure under the JJ Act and CARA Regulations, which itself takes time. The Court noted that by the time the child is legally placed with the adoptive mother, the three-month limit may already have expired. It therefore found the provision to be “illusory and devoid of practical application.”
5. According to the Court, the true fulfilment of the child’s welfare lies in enabling the child to meaningfully adjust, bond, and flourish within the family environment. The period immediately following adoption is particularly significant because the child must acclimatise to unfamiliar surroundings and develop a sense of belonging.

Conclusion

The judgment is significant because it broadens the understanding of maternity benefits beyond biological childbirth and recognises the realities of adoptive motherhood. The Court made it clear that the needs of a mother and child do not depend merely on the age of the adopted child, and that the process of adjustment, bonding and integration continues even after the formal adoption. By recognising adoption as an aspect of reproductive and decisional autonomy under Article 21, the judgment strengthens the rights and dignity of adoptive mothers while also placing importance on the best interests of the child. It also highlights the need for maternity laws to be practically workable and sensitive to the realities of the adoption process.

References

1. Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 INSC 246, Supreme Court of India, decided on 17 March 2026.
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58466692/
3. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, particularly Section 5(4).
4. The Code on Social Security, 2020, particularly Section 60(4) and Section 67.
5. The Constitution of India, art 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 32.
6. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
7. Adoption Regulations, 2022, issued by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA).
8. Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017.