Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India | Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice R. Mahadevan
CASE SNAPSHOT
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Decision Date | 17 March 2026 |
| Provision Challenged | Section 60(4), Code on Social Security, 2020 |
| Constitutional Basis | Articles 14 & 21, Constitution of India |
| Key Outcome | Section 60(4) struck down; Centre directed to enact paternity leave law |
| Practice Areas | Constitutional Law | Labour Law | Gender Rights |
1. Background
India’s parental leave framework has long been structurally unequal. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as amended in 2017, provides 26 weeks of paid leave to eligible working women, while no comprehensive statute has ever codified paternity leave for the broader workforce. Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 deepened this inequity by permitting adoptive mothers to claim 12 weeks of maternity leave only if the adopted child was below three months of age — effectively excluding those who adopt older children from any statutory protection.
Advocate Hamsaanandini Nanduri filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of this age-based restriction, arguing that it violated the Right to Equality under Article 14 and the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Legal Issues
The bench was called upon to determine three interrelated questions. First, whether the three-month age restriction in Section 60(4) constituted an unreasonable classification in violation of Article 14. Second, whether the denial of maternity benefits to adoptive mothers of older children infringed upon the rights to dignity, reproductive autonomy, and family life guaranteed under Article 21. Third, and most significantly for future legislative reform, whether the complete absence of a statutory paternity leave framework was consistent with the constitutional mandate of substantive gender equality.
3. The Supreme Court’s Ruling
3.1 Section 60(4) Declared Unconstitutional
The bench delivered a unanimous verdict, holding that Section 60(4) was violative of Articles 14 and 21 insofar as it imposed an age ceiling on the adopted child. The Court declared that every adoptive mother must be entitled to 12 weeks of maternity leave irrespective of the age of the adopted child at the time of adoption.
3.2 Rationale: The Purpose of Parental Leave
The Court’s reasoning was anchored in the substantive objective of maternity leave, which extends beyond physical recovery to encompass bonding, nurturing, and the child’s developmental security. The bench held that an adopted child and a biological child are equally situated in law, and that care, responsibility, and commitment — not biology — define the parent-child relationship. The Court observed that biological factors alone do not determine family, and an adopted child is no different from a natural child.
3.3 The Paternity Leave Directive
In what is likely to prove the most consequential aspect of this judgment, the bench explicitly urged the Union government to enact a statutory framework recognising paternity leave as a social security benefit. The Court acknowledged that the duration and conditions of such leave fall within Parliament’s policy domain, but stressed that both parents must be recognised as equal caregivers under the law. This judicial directive, while not a binding legislative mandate, carries substantial constitutional authority and is widely expected to serve as the catalyst for long-overdue reform.
4. Key Takeaways for Legal Practitioners
- Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 is void to the extent it restricts adoptive maternity leave based on the child’s age.
- Adoptive mothers in the organised sector are now entitled to 12 weeks of paid maternity leave regardless of the adopted child’s age at the time of adoption.
- Employers must immediately review and revise parental leave policies; any age-based restriction is now constitutionally untenable.
- The Supreme Court’s directive creates a firm constitutional foundation for statutory paternity leave legislation — a development employment law practitioners must anticipate.
5. Conclusion
Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India is a landmark judgment that advances India’s constitutional jurisprudence on parental rights, gender equality, and the dignity of adoptive families. By striking down an unjust restriction and issuing a clear call for paternity leave legislation, the Supreme Court has signalled that India’s employment law must evolve to reflect the realities of diverse family structures and the imperative of equal caregiving. The legislative response from Parliament will determine whether this historic ruling translates into transformative change for India’s working families.