The Supreme Court on Friday has questioned the Centre on the rationale behind limiting maternity leave benefits to women who adopt children under 3 months of age.
This provision, under Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, allows 12 weeks of leave only for adoptive mothers of children younger than 3 months.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal noted that the petitioner, in their public interest plea, argued that the provision lacks reasonable classification. The petition highlights that the law unfairly excludes women who adopt children older than 3 months from accessing maternity leave benefits.
“If a woman adopts a child above the age of 3 months, she will not be entitled to any such maternity leave benefit as provided under the Amendment Act,” the bench stated in its November 12 order.
The Centre has previously justified the provision but has now been directed to provide a more detailed response addressing specific issues raised during the hearing. The court has asked the government to explain the logic behind limiting the benefit to adoptions involving infants under three months.
The bench said, “We expect the Union of India to file a further reply on the issue, more particularly, as to what is the rationale in saying that it is only that woman who adopts a child below the age of three months who would be entitled to seek maternity leave benefits.”
The Centre has three weeks to file its response, with the petitioner’s counsel receiving a copy beforehand to allow for a rejoinder. The case is scheduled for final disposal on December 17.
The plea, initially filed in October 2021, challenges the constitutional validity of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act. It argues that the provision is discriminatory, not just toward adoptive mothers but also toward children older than 3 months who are orphaned, abandoned, or surrendered.
The petition claims the provision contradicts the objectives of both the Maternity Benefit Act and the Juvenile Justice Act.
The petitioner also pointed out that the 12 weeks of leave granted to adoptive mothers pales in comparison to the 26 weeks provided to biological mothers. They argued that this discrepancy fails to align with the principles of equality and non-arbitrariness enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.
The case underscores the need for inclusive policies that recognize the diverse needs of adoptive mothers and older children while ensuring equitable maternity benefits for all.
