Supreme Court questions Centre over maternity leave restrictions for adoptive mothers
text_fields
The Supreme Court has sought an explanation from the Centre regarding a provision under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, that allows maternity leave only for women who adopt a child under the age of three months.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal was hearing a plea challenging the constitutionality of Section 5(4) of the Act. The provision grants adoptive mothers 12 weeks of maternity leave but limits this benefit to cases where the adopted child is less than three months old.
The bench noted that the petition raises a valid concern about the discriminatory nature of this provision. “The petitioner argues that the law, being a social welfare legislation, fails to provide reasonable classification by restricting maternity leave benefits to only children under three months,” the bench observed in its November 12 order.
The court pointed out that women adopting older children are excluded from such benefits, which appears to contradict the Act's purpose. During the hearing, it directed the Centre to provide further clarification, especially regarding the rationale behind limiting maternity leave to those adopting infants below three months.
The court ordered the Centre to file a detailed reply within three weeks, ensuring that a copy is shared with the petitioner’s counsel for rejoinder. The case has been scheduled for final hearing on December 17.
The plea, filed in October 2021, challenges Section 5(4) as discriminatory and arbitrary. It argues that the provision is not only unfair to adoptive mothers but also discriminates against orphaned, abandoned, or surrendered children above three months of age.
“The provision is inconsistent with the objectives of both the Maternity Benefit Act and the Juvenile Justice Act,” the petition stated. It also highlighted that adoptive mothers are granted only 12 weeks of maternity leave compared to the 26 weeks provided to biological mothers. This disparity, the plea contended, undermines the principle of non-arbitrariness enshrined in the Constitution.
The case has reignited discussions on equitable parental leave policies, particularly for adoptive mothers, and their alignment with constitutional values and social welfare objectives.
