NextFin News - The Supreme Court of India has struck down a restrictive provision in the Maternity Benefit Act that previously denied leave to women adopting children older than three months, a decision that fundamentally redefines the legal understanding of motherhood in the workplace. In a landmark ruling delivered on Tuesday, the court declared Section 5(4) of the Act unconstitutional, arguing that the age of the child should not dictate the bond between a mother and her new arrival. The bench, led by Justice Hima Kohli, emphasized that the statutory distinction between mothers adopting infants and those adopting older children was "arbitrary and discriminatory," effectively penalizing families who provide homes to older orphans or children in the foster system.
Under the previous 2017 amendment, adoptive mothers were only entitled to 12 weeks of maternity leave if the child was under three months old at the time of adoption. This created a paradoxical situation where the law incentivized the adoption of infants while withholding support from those undertaking the often more complex task of integrating an older child into a family. The Supreme Court has now leveled this field, mandating that all adoptive mothers, regardless of the child's age, are entitled to the full 12-week benefit. This shift acknowledges that the "settling-in" period—a critical phase for psychological bonding and domestic adjustment—is no less vital for a four-year-old than it is for a newborn.
The economic implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate payroll costs for Indian corporations. By removing this age barrier, the judiciary is addressing a significant hurdle in India’s adoption landscape, where older children frequently languish in state care because prospective parents fear the lack of institutional support. According to data from the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), the vast majority of adoptions in India involve children under the age of two; the court’s decision removes a structural deterrent for working professionals who might otherwise consider adopting older children. For the private sector, this means a broader application of the 12-week leave policy, which, while a fraction of the 26 weeks granted to biological mothers, represents a mandatory cost that must now be factored into human resource planning across all sectors.
Critics of the previous policy argued that the three-month cap was biologically focused rather than socially inclusive, failing to recognize that maternity leave is as much about the mother’s transition as it is about the child’s physical needs. The Supreme Court’s intervention aligns Indian labor law more closely with international standards, such as those seen in the United Kingdom or Canada, where leave is generally triggered by the placement of the child rather than the child's date of birth. By framing the issue as a violation of the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, the court has signaled that the state cannot create "classes within a class" of mothers based on the age of their children.
The ruling also places a spotlight on the broader disparity between biological and adoptive parents. While biological mothers in India enjoy 26 weeks of paid leave, adoptive and commissioning (surrogate) mothers remain capped at 12 weeks. While the court did not equalize these two categories in this specific judgment, the logic used to strike down the three-month age bar—that the law must support the "mother-child bond"—suggests that the current 14-week gap between biological and adoptive leave may face its own legal challenges. Employers will now need to update internal policies immediately to ensure compliance, as any denial of leave based on the child's age now constitutes a direct violation of constitutional rights.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
