Is It Time for a Paternity Leave Law in India? Supreme Court Flags Concern

The Supreme Court of India, in Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India & Ors. (2026), delivered a significant judgment examining the scope and constitutional validity of maternity benefits for adoptive mothers under the Code on Social Security, 2020. While the case primarily addressed the discriminatory limitation imposed on adoptive mothers, the Court made an important observation highlighting the institutional invisibility of care work and the urgent need to recognise paternity leave in India.

The judgment is a progressive step towards redefining parenthood, social security, and gender equality in India’s labour jurisprudence.

Background and Facts

The petitioner, an adoptive mother of two children, approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (as amended in 2017), which was later replaced by Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020.

The impugned provision granted 12 weeks of maternity leave only to women adopting a child below the age of three months.

The petitioner argued that this restriction was:

• Arbitrary and discriminatory
• Violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21
• Detrimental to both adoptive mothers and children

She contended that the law failed to account for the realities of adoption procedures, which often extend beyond three months, thereby rendering the benefit illusory.

Issues

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:

• Whether the three-month age restriction for adoptive children under Section 60(4) violates Article 14.

The Supreme Court held that the three-month age limit under Section 60(4) is constitutionally suspect and fails the test of reasonable classification under Article 14.

The Court observed that:

• The classification between adoptive mothers of children below three months and above three months is artificial and under-inclusive.
• It excludes a class of adoptive mothers who are similarly situated in terms of caregiving needs, without any rational basis.
• The object of maternity benefit laws is to ensure childcare, bonding, and integration, which does not depend strictly on the child’s age.

The Court emphasised that emotional bonding and caregiving requirements remain equally significant even after three months, and therefore, the classification lacks a rational nexus with the purpose of the legislation.

• Whether the provision infringes the rights to dignity, reproductive autonomy, and child welfare under Article 21.

The Court answered this issue in favour of the petitioner, holding that the restriction impinges upon both the rights of adoptive mothers and the adopted child under Article 21.

The Court held that:

• Adoption is an expression of reproductive autonomy, and denying maternity benefits undermines this constitutional freedom.
• The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to:

Dignified motherhood

Meaningful bonding between parent and child

Holistic development of the child

The impugned provision deprives:

• The mother of adequate time to nurture and integrate the child, and
• The child of necessary emotional care and familial bonding.

The Court further recognised that in adoption cases, bonding must be consciously developed through time and caregiving, making leave even more essential.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner advanced several constitutional and practical arguments:

1. Arbitrary Classification

The classification between adoptive mothers of children below and above three months was:

• Artificial
• Lacking a rational nexus with the object of the law

A woman adopting a child of four months would be denied benefits despite identical caregiving needs.

2. Adoption Process Reality

The adoption process under the Juvenile Justice Act and CARA Regulations is time-consuming, often exceeding three months. Therefore:

• The benefit becomes practically inaccessible
• The law fails its intended purpose

3. Violation of Article 21

The provision denies:

• The child’s right to care and integration
• The mother’s right to meaningful motherhood

4. Impact on Women’s Employment

The restriction discourages working women from adopting children and interferes with their right to a profession under Article 19(1)(g).

Arguments by the Respondents

The Union of India defended the provision on the following grounds:

• The classification is reasonable and based on caregiving intensity
• Younger children require more intensive care
• Alternative facilities like crèches are available
• The provision balances employer interests with employee rights

Maternity Leave as a Foundation of Social Justice

Before addressing paternity leave, it is important to understand the philosophical and legal basis of maternity benefits.

The Supreme Court reiterated that maternity protection is not merely a statutory entitlement but a basic human right. It serves multiple purposes:

• Protecting maternal health
• Ensuring economic security
• Promoting child welfare
• Advancing gender equality

The Court observed that maternity benefits help women balance professional obligations with caregiving responsibilities and prevent workplace discrimination arising from motherhood.

However, the Court also acknowledged a critical limitation: the current framework reinforces the stereotype that caregiving is solely a woman’s responsibility.

Expanding the Idea of Parenthood

A key contribution of the judgment lies in its recognition that parenthood extends beyond biological motherhood. The Court emphasised:

• Parenthood is defined by care, not merely biology.
• Emotional bonding is central to child development.
• Adoptive and commissioning mothers deserve equal recognition.

By extension, this reasoning logically includes fathers as active participants in caregiving. The Court further identified three core components of parental leave:

1. Time for physical recovery (relevant mainly for biological mothers)
2. Time for emotional bonding
3. Time for childcare and family integration

Notably, the second and third components are equally relevant for fathers, strengthening the argument for paternity leave.

Constitutional Perspective

Article 14: Equality Before Law

The absence of paternity leave raises serious concerns under Article 14. While maternity leave is justified due to biological differences, excluding fathers entirely from parental leave policies creates a gendered imbalance.

Modern constitutional interpretation recognises substantive equality, which requires dismantling structural stereotypes. Assigning caregiving exclusively to women perpetuates inequality rather than addressing it.

Article 21: Right to Life and Dignity

The right to life under Article 21 includes:

• Right to family life
• Right to dignity
• Right to child development

The Court emphasised that the best interests of the child must be central to any legal framework. From this perspective, denying fathers the opportunity to participate in early childcare may adversely affect:

• Emotional bonding
• Psychological development of the child
• Family stability

Thus, paternity leave can be seen as an extension of Article 21 rights.

Article 19(1)(g): Right to Profession

The current system indirectly burdens women’s right to work by placing disproportionate childcare responsibilities on them.

Introducing paternity leave would:

• Promote workplace equality
• Reduce gender-based career interruptions
• Encourage shared domestic responsibilities

Precedents Cited

1. B. Shah v. Presiding Officer, (1977) 4 SCC 384

The Supreme Court held that beneficial legislation must be interpreted purposively to advance social justice. The case emphasises that maternity benefits serve not only physical recovery but also childcare and maternal well-being.

2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers, (2000) 3 SCC 224

The Court recognised maternity benefits as a facet of dignity under Articles 39, 42, and 43. It extended maternity benefits to even daily wage workers, stressing humane treatment of working women.

3. Deepika Singh v. PGIMER, Chandigarh, (2023) 13 SCC 681

The Court adopted a purposive interpretation of maternity leave, recognising diverse family structures and holding that maternity benefits must not be denied based on rigid or traditional definitions of family.

4. K. Umadevi v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2025) 8 SCC 263

The Court clarified that maternity benefits cannot be denied solely based on technical limitations like the number of children and must align with broader welfare objectives.

5. Rama Pandey v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10484

The Delhi High Court held that maternity leave is not limited to biological recovery but extends to child care and bonding, reinforcing the welfare-centric approach.

Key Highlights 

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed: 

...........it reinforces gendered roles in parenting. Secondly, even where a father is willing and desirous of contributing, he is left without a meaningful opportunity to do so. When fathers are afforded the opportunity to take leave following the arrival of the child, they are able to support mother and share family responsibilities. This support extends to participating in the upbringing and caregiving of the child, assisting with household responsibilities, and remaining emotionally present during this demanding phase.

..........the best interests and welfare of the child, which are most effectively served when both parents are enabled to play meaningful and complementary roles in the child’s growth and development.

International Perspective on Paternity Leave

Globally, there is increasing recognition of paternity leave as a vital component of labour welfare.

Key Trends

• Nordic countries (e.g., Sweden, Norway): Shared parental leave models
• UK: Statutory paternity leave and shared parental leave
• USA: Limited but evolving policies under family leave laws
• ILO standards: Encourage gender-neutral caregiving frameworks

International conventions such as CEDAW and the Convention on the Rights of the Child emphasise:

• Non-discrimination
• Child welfare
• Shared parental responsibility

The Supreme Court itself referred to international frameworks recognising caregiving as a social function, not a gendered obligation.

Indian Legal Position on Paternity Leave

Current Scenario

India does not have a comprehensive statutory framework for paternity leave.

• Central Government employees: 15 days paternity leave (administrative rule)
• Private sector: No uniform legal mandate
• Labour laws: Silent on paternity leave

This fragmented approach leads to:

• Lack of uniformity
• Inequality across sectors
• Reinforcement of gender roles

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s observations in Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India mark a significant moment in the evolution of Indian labour and constitutional law. By acknowledging the importance of caregiving beyond motherhood and highlighting the need for paternity leave, the Court has opened the door to a more inclusive and equitable framework.

In contemporary India, where gender roles are rapidly evolving, the absence of a statutory paternity leave law appears increasingly outdated. Recognising paternity leave is not merely a matter of employee welfare; it is a step towards gender equality, child welfare and social justice.

The question is no longer whether India needs paternity leave, but how soon it can implement it effectively.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams