The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the rationale behind a legal provision that says adoptive parents are entitled to maternity benefits only if the adopted child is less than three months old [Hamsaanandini Nanduri vs Union of India and ors]..A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which was inserted by a 2017 amendment.This provision states that a woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three months is entitled to maternity benefits for twelve weeks.The Court today asked the Central government's counsel to explain the logic behind this provision."What is the idea of saying that child has to be three months or less? What is the object of having a provision to grant maternity leave? To take care of child, whether it is biological or any kind of mother ... What is the idea behind granting maternity benefit to only that woman who adopts children aged less than three months?" the Court asked. .The top court had issued notice in the PIL in October 2021.The petitioner, H Nanduri, stated that Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act is in conflict with the letter and spirit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act as well as fundamental rights outlined in the Constitution of India.It is quite difficult for a mother to adopt an orphaned, abandoned or surrendered child under three months of age, the petitioner explained. In view of this, the petitioner argued that women who adopt children (often older than three months of age) would be deprived of statutory maternity benefits that new mothers are otherwise entitled to under the Maternity Benefit Act. .While answering the Court's queries today, the Union government today submitted there is a tremendous difference between biological and adoptive mothers.The Bench eventually listed the matter after four weeks, after asking the government to file a better affidavit by then.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the rationale behind a legal provision that says adoptive parents are entitled to maternity benefits only if the adopted child is less than three months old [Hamsaanandini Nanduri vs Union of India and ors]..A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which was inserted by a 2017 amendment.This provision states that a woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three months is entitled to maternity benefits for twelve weeks.The Court today asked the Central government's counsel to explain the logic behind this provision."What is the idea of saying that child has to be three months or less? What is the object of having a provision to grant maternity leave? To take care of child, whether it is biological or any kind of mother ... What is the idea behind granting maternity benefit to only that woman who adopts children aged less than three months?" the Court asked. .The top court had issued notice in the PIL in October 2021.The petitioner, H Nanduri, stated that Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act is in conflict with the letter and spirit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act as well as fundamental rights outlined in the Constitution of India.It is quite difficult for a mother to adopt an orphaned, abandoned or surrendered child under three months of age, the petitioner explained. In view of this, the petitioner argued that women who adopt children (often older than three months of age) would be deprived of statutory maternity benefits that new mothers are otherwise entitled to under the Maternity Benefit Act. .While answering the Court's queries today, the Union government today submitted there is a tremendous difference between biological and adoptive mothers.The Bench eventually listed the matter after four weeks, after asking the government to file a better affidavit by then.