Statutory age limit for adopted children to qualify for maternity benefits is unconstitutional and discriminatory.

The petitioner, an adoptive mother of two, filed a public interest litigation challenging the constitutionality of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (as amended in 2017).

During the pendency of the petition, the Code on Social Security, 2020, was enacted, and Section 60(4) became the pari materia provision.

The impugned provision granted twelve weeks of maternity benefit only to adoptive mothers who legally adopt a child "below the age of three months".

The petitioner contended that this age cap was arbitrary, discriminatory, and ignored the procedural realities of adoption under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and CARA Regulations.

1. Whether the three-month age limit stipulated under Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, violates Article 14 of the Constitution by discriminating against women who adopt children aged three months or above.

2. Whether the three-month age limit violates the right to reproductive autonomy of adoptive mothers and the right of the adopted child to holistic care and development under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court primarily applied the test of "reasonable classification" under Article 14, requiring an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to the statutory object.

It relied on B. Shah v. Presiding Officer [para. 42] and Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) [para. 43] to establish that maternity benefits are instruments of social justice designed to dignify motherhood and ensure child welfare.

The Court further utilized the "best interest of the child" principle as codified in Section 2(9) and Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

Recognized "reproductive autonomy" as a facet of personal liberty under Article 21, per Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn.

The Court reasoned that maternity benefits comprise three components: physical recovery, emotional bonding, and child integration.

While adoptive mothers do not require physical recovery, the needs for bonding and integration are independent of the child’s age at the time of adoption.

The Court found the age cap of three months to be "under-inclusive" and "arbitrary," as it lacks a rational nexus with the object of nurturing the parent-child bond.

The Court conducted a "workability" analysis, noting that the statutory procedure for declaring a child "legally free for adoption" (involving surrender reconsideration periods or efforts to trace biological parents) typically takes at least two to four months.

Consequently, the three-month limit rendered the benefit "illusory" and "practically unattainable" for the vast majority of adoptive mothers.

Under Article 21, the Court held that the choice to adopt is a protected exercise of reproductive autonomy and that the State cannot discriminate based on the biological or non-biological mode of attaining motherhood.

The Court read down the provision to remove the age restriction, holding that any woman who legally adopts a child shall be entitled to twelve weeks of maternity benefit from the date the child is handed over.

The Court urged the Union of India to formulate provisions for "paternity leave" to recognize parenting as a shared responsibility and dismantle gendered caregiving roles.

The Writ Petition was allowed.