Hamsaanandini Nanduri v Union of India (2026): Maternity Benefit and the Three-Month Cut-Off for Adoptive Mothers
Date Published
A mother adopts a child who is four months old. Is she entitled to maternity benefit? Under the provision challenged in Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 960 of 2021), reported as 2026 INSC 246, the answer was no, and the Supreme Court has now examined why that line may fail Article 14. Justice J.B. Pardiwala authored the judgment.
A note on the title: the plan describes a post on contractual employees and maternity benefit. The related ruling I could read concerns adoptive mothers. The excerpt available did not show the date of pronouncement, the other Bench members or the final operative order, so treat the final conclusion as something to confirm from the full judgment.
What was challenged
The petitioner, an adoptive mother of two children, filed a public interest writ under Article 32. She challenged Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as inserted by the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017. She said it violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21.
On 21.11.2025 the Code on Social Security, 2020 came into force and absorbed the Act. Its Section 60(4) is materially identical. On 12.12.2025 the Court allowed the petitioner to amend and challenge the new provision.
Section 60(4) gives a woman who legally adopts a child below three months of age, or a commissioning mother, twelve weeks of maternity benefit from the date the child is handed over. The challenge is limited to adoptive mothers. Section 60(1) sets the benefit at the average daily wage, and Section 67 deals with crèche facilities.
The arguments
Petitioner (Ms. Bani Dikshit): the three-month cut-off is an artificial classification with no rational link to the Code's object. A mother adopting a four-month-old receives nothing. The adoption process under the JJ Act and CARA Regulations takes long, so the benefit is often useless. The bar also affects occupational rights under Article 19(1)(g) and the care the child needs under Article 21.
Respondents (ASG K.M. Nataraj): the provision must be read within the whole scheme. Adoption procedures have been speeded up through district magistrates. Older children can use employer crèches under Section 67. Children under three months need more intensive care. The provision, they said, balances mothers' rights and employers' concerns.
Read Also: Umar and Anr v State of Uttar Pradesh (2026)
The questions
· Does the three-month limit violate Article 14 by discriminating against women who adopt older children?
· Does it violate adoptive mothers' reproductive autonomy and the adopted child's right to holistic care under Article 21?
What the Court held (as visible)
The Court held that the three-month limit in Section 60(4), to the extent it creates the cut-off, is discriminatory and violates Article 14. The distinction (1) has no reasonable basis, (2) has no nexus with the object of the law, and (3) is under-inclusive, because similarly situated adoptive mothers are left out. It rejected the crèche argument as a substitute.
The reasoning in plain words
· The Act, now part of the Code, aims to dignify motherhood, protect maternal well-being and keep women in the workforce.
· Leave serves three needs: physical recovery, emotional bonding and integration into the family. Adoption lacks the first, but the other two matter and take time.
· Adoptive mothers of children above and below three months are similarly placed.
· The Court applied the classification test from State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar and State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills: it must be intelligible, rationally connected to the object, and include all similarly situated persons.
· Children with disabilities often wait longer for adoption, so an age cap harms them. Single adoptive mothers carry the whole burden.
· The Court noted the South African decision in Werner Van Wyk v. Minister of Employment and Labour (2025), which struck down a similar age cap.
Earlier cases cited include B. Shah v. Presiding Officer (1977), Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (2000), Deepika Singh v. PGIMER (2023) and K. Umadevi v. State of T.N. (2025).
Watch Our You Tube Video:
BNSS 2023 in One Shot | Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Exam angle
This is a good example of the reasonable classification test. A question may give you an age limit in a welfare law and ask whether it is valid. Use the three-part reasoning: no reasonable basis, no nexus, under-inclusive.
FAQs
What is the case called and how is it reported?
Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 960 of 2021, reported as 2026 INSC 246.
Who authored the judgment?
Justice J.B. Pardiwala.
Which provision was challenged?
Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and the identical Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020.
What does Section 60(4) provide?
Twelve weeks of maternity benefit for a woman who adopts a child below three months, or a commissioning mother, from the date the child is handed over.
Which Article did the Court find violated?
Article 14.
What was the State's crèche argument?
That older children can use employer crèches under Section 67. The Court rejected it as a substitute.
Which cases did the Court use for the classification test?
State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar and State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills.
Did the Court look at foreign law?
Yes, it cited Werner Van Wyk v. Minister of Employment and Labour, a South African decision.
Conclusion
Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India links welfare legislation with equality. The age cut-off failed because similarly placed mothers were treated differently.
At Aashayein Judiciary, Nitesh Sir ensures that recent rulings reach you in simple Judiciary Notes.Get exam-ready with online judiciary coaching designed for conceptual clarity, comprehensive syllabus coverage, regular practice, and expert guidance to help you succeed in Civil Judge, ADPO, and APO examinations.