For years, Indian law quietly carried an assumption that few paused to question: that a woman who adopts a child older than three months somehow needs less time to become a mother. It took a constitutional challenge—and a moment of judicial clarity—for that assumption to collapse.
In its recent ruling in Hamsaanandini Nanduri vs Union of India, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Social Security Code, 2020, that denied maternity leave to adoptive mothers if the child was older than three months. In doing so, the Court did more than correct a statutory flaw—it exposed deeper social and legal misconceptions about motherhood, caregiving and the architecture of the Indian family.
At the outset, the Court observed that the provision created “an artificial distinction which has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved”, setting the tone for a judgment that is as much about constitutional principle as it is about lived reality.
MISUNDERSTOOD MOTHERHOOD
At the heart of the now-invalidated provision lay a deeply flawed premise: that maternal bonding is time-bound and that its urgency diminishes as a child grows older. The Court rejected this outright. A bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, made the position unequivocal: “The need for maternal care, bonding and emotional security does not vary with the age of the child.”
This finding performs two crucial functions. First, it places adoptive mothers on the same constitutional footing as biological mothers, affirming that motherhood cannot be hierarchised based on how a child enters a family.
Second, it dismantles an artificial classification lacking rational basis, reinforcing the core spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution—that equality requires the law to avoid arbitrary distinctions where human experience draws none.
Beyond doctrine, the Court acknowledged something far more fundamental: motherhood is not an event, but a process. A woman adopting a six-month-old—or even an older child—is not stepping into a lesser role. If anything, she may be entering a space demanding greater emotional labour, patience and adjustment.
In that sense, the ruling corrects not merely a legal anomaly but a longstanding social blind spot.
THE LONG ARC OF MATERNITY RIGHTS
To understand the significance of the verdict, it must be situated within the evolution of maternity rights in India. From the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, to later legislative expansions, progress has been incremental and often driven by advocacy rather than proactive policymaking. While the extension of paid leave marked a milestone, the framework continued to carry residual exclusions—particularly for adoptive mothers.
This judgment pushes maternity rights into their next phase. It recognises that such benefits are not merely about biological recovery but about caregiving, bonding and child welfare.
Crucially, the Court underscored that maternity benefits are not a matter of charity but of entitlement, rooted in dignity and equality. Any restrictive interpretation, it noted, would defeat the very purpose of social welfare legislation.
Seen in this light, the ruling is both progressive and evolutionary. It affirms that women’s workplace rights cannot be divorced from their roles within families—and that the law must respond to lived realities rather than rigid categories.
BRINGING FATHERS INTO THE FRAME
Even as the judgment expands the meaning of motherhood, it also quietly—but powerfully—redefines fatherhood.
In urging the government to consider structured paternity leave as part of social security benefits, the Court made a forward-looking observation: “The presence of both parents in the early development of a child is indispensable, and the role of the father cannot be relegated to a secondary status.”
This marks a significant departure from India’s current landscape, where paternity leave remains limited and largely symbolic.
More importantly, it challenges a deeply entrenched social reality. For generations, childcare has been seen as the exclusive domain of women. Fathers often remained at the margins of early caregiving—not necessarily by choice, but due to workplace structures, social conditioning and unspoken taboos.
The Court’s recognition disrupts thispattern. It signals that a father’s role is neither auxiliary nor optional but central—to the child’s development and to the well-being of the mother.
WHERE LAW MEETS SCIENCE
What lends this judgment additional depth is that its reasoning aligns with decades of scientific research on early childhood development.
Studies in developmental psychology have long established that newborns recognise and respond to caregivers almost immediately. Research by Anthony DeCasper famously demonstrated that infants only days old show a marked preference for their mother’s voice. Other studies show that newborns can identify their mother through scent within the first week of life.
Neuroscientific research from the Harvard Center on the Developing Child has further shown that responsive interactions between infants and caregivers build neural circuits essential for emotional regulation and cognitive development.
Importantly, this is not a mother-exclusive domain. Global institutions, such as UNICEF and the World Health Organization, have consistently highlighted that active father involvement strengthens children’s emotional security and social development while reducing maternal stress.
Seen in this light, the Court’s emphasis on shared parenting is not merely aspirational—it is scientifically grounded.
FROM BIOLOGY TO CARE
Ultimately, what the Supreme Court has done in this case is redefine the legal understanding of parenthood itself.
In one of its most telling observations, the Court cautioned against allowing the law to be guided by outdated assumptions, emphasising that social realities must inform legal interpretation—especially in matters concerning family and welfare.
The judgment recognises three fundamental truths:
- Motherhood is not determined by biology alone.
- Fatherhood cannot remain peripheral.
- A child’s early life requires the presence and care of both parents.
In doing so, the Court nudges Indian law towards a more humane, realistic and scientifically informed vision of the family.
And perhaps that is the most enduring impact of the ruling—not simply that it expanded maternity leave, but that it reminded the law of something fundamental: care cannot be measured in months, nor confined by definitions of birth.
—The writer is a New Delhi-based journalist, lawyer and trained mediator