MOTHERHOOD BEYOND BIOLOGY: SUPREME COURT EXPANDS MATERNITY RIGHTS FOR ADOPTIVE MOTHERS

INTRODUCTION
In Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 INSC 246, decided on 19 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justice J.B. Pardiwala, undertook a significant constitutional examination of maternity benefits available to adoptive mothers under the Code on Social Security, 2020.
The Court was called upon to determine the validity of a statutory provision that restricted maternity benefits only to women adopting children below the age of three months. In doing so, the Court explored the intersection of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 and reaffirmed that motherhood, biological or adoptive, is a constitutionally protected facet of dignity, equality and personal autonomy.

BRIEF FACTS
The Petitioner, an adoptive mother, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, which grants maternity benefits only to women who adopt children below the age of three months.
It was argued that this provision creates an arbitrary classification by excluding adoptive mothers of children above three months, thereby depriving both the mother and child of crucial bonding time and care.
The Petitioner further contended that the provision disregards the realities of the adoption process, which often makes it practically impossible to adopt a child below three months and consequently defeats the very purpose of maternity benefits.

ISSUES OF LAW
The Court considered whether:
1) The restriction of maternity benefits to adoptive mothers of children below three months violates Article 14 by creating an unreasonable classification.
2) The provision infringes the right to dignity, reproductive autonomy, and meaningful motherhood under Article 21.
3) The classification undermines the welfare and developmental needs of the adopted child.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court began by recognising maternity protection as a fundamental human right, rooted in international conventions and constitutional guarantees. It emphasised that maternity benefits are not merely economic entitlements but instruments of social justice, gender equality and child welfare.
A key contribution of the Judgment lies in its expansive understanding of motherhood. The Court rejected the narrow biological conception and held that motherhood is defined by care, emotional bonding and responsibility, not merely by childbirth.
The Court identified three essential components of maternity leave. Firstly, the time required for physical recovery (in biological cases). Secondly, the development of emotional bonding and lastly, the integration of the child into the family. While the first component may not apply to adoptive mothers, the latter two are equally, if not more, significant.
Applying the test of reasonable classification under Article 14, the Court found that the three-month age limit fails to satisfy constitutional scrutiny. The classification was held to be under-inclusive, as it excludes a large class of adoptive mothers who are similarly situated in terms of caregiving needs and emotional bonding.
The Court further observed that the needs of an adopted child do not diminish merely because the child is older than three months. In fact, children adopted at a later stage may require even greater care and emotional support to adapt to a new family environment.
Importantly, the Court took note of the practical realities of adoption procedures, which often extend beyond three months, thereby rendering the statutory benefit largely illusory.
On the touchstone of Article 21, the Court held that the right to motherhood includes the right to nurture, care and bond with a child and that such a right cannot be curtailed by an arbitrary statutory limitation.
The Judgment also highlighted the institutional invisibility of caregiving work, acknowledging that unpaid care responsibilities disproportionately fall on women and must be recognised within the framework of constitutional rights.

CONCLUSION
The ruling marks a progressive step towards aligning legal frameworks with the lived realities of modern families. By recognising that motherhood transcends biological boundaries, the Court has reaffirmed that constitutional protections must evolve with changing social contexts.
In dismantling an arbitrary classification, the Judgment ensures that maternity benefits serve their true purpose: to support caregiving, protect dignity and promote the holistic development of the child. It reinforces that the law must not merely acknowledge motherhood but must meaningfully enable it, irrespective of how it is experienced.

SUSHILA RAM VARMA
Advocate & Chief Legal Consultant
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video on “Stridhan” can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVxuaYNrdwM