
In a landmark judgment delivered on March 17, 2026, the Supreme Court of India struck down a provision in the Code on Social Security, 2020, which restricted maternity leave for adoptive mothers to cases where the adopted child was below three months of age. The Court held the provision to be discriminatory and unconstitutional, observing that it created an artificial distinction that had no rational connection with the objective of maternity protection.
The Court recognised that maternity leave is not limited to biological recovery but extends to caregiving, emotional bonding, and the integration of the child into a family. It further noted that older adopted children may, in fact, require more time and attention to adjust to a new environment. By removing the age-based restriction, the judgment ensures that all adoptive mothers are entitled to 12 weeks of maternity leave from the date of adoption, irrespective of the child’s age.
This decision reflects a broader shift in legal thinking, where parenthood is no longer confined to biological relationships but includes adoption and other forms of family creation. The Court also urged the government to consider introducing paternity leave, indicating a move towards recognising caregiving as a shared responsibility.
While the ruling strengthens equality and child welfare, it also raises important questions about whether labour laws should further evolve to accommodate diverse family structures. The judgment, therefore, represents not only a correction of an exclusionary provision but also a step towards a more inclusive and modern understanding of family and social welfare.
Q1. Riya adopts a 1-year-old child and applies for maternity leave. Her employer rejects the request stating that maternity leave is only available for adoptive mothers of children below 3 months.
What is the most appropriate legal position?
A. The employer is correct because maternity leave depends on the child’s age
B. The employer is correct because adoption of older children is different
C. The employer is wrong as all adoptive mothers are entitled to maternity leave
D. The employer can decide based on company policy
✅ Answer: C
Q2. Megha adopts a 5-month-old child. The company policy provides maternity leave only for biological mothers. Megha challenges the denial.
What is the correct legal outcome?
A. Megha cannot claim leave because she is not a biological mother
B. Megha can claim leave only if the company voluntarily allows it
C. Megha can claim leave only if the child is below 3 months
D. Megha is entitled to maternity leave as adoption is equal to biological parenthood
✅ Answer: D
Q3. An organisation argues that maternity leave is meant only for physical recovery after childbirth, and therefore adoptive mothers should not be granted the same benefit.
Which of the following best reflects the legal position?
A. The argument is incorrect because maternity leave also ensures bonding and child care
B. The argument is correct as adoption does not involve physical recovery
C. The argument is partially correct but depends on company policy
D. The argument is valid only for children below 3 months
✅ Answer: A
Q4. A law provides maternity leave only to adoptive mothers who adopt children below 6 months, excluding those adopting older children. A challenge is filed.
What is the most likely legal reasoning?
A. The law is valid as it extends the benefit beyond 3 months
B. The law is valid because older children need less care
C. The law is valid if applied uniformly
D. The law is unconstitutional as age-based classification is discriminatory
✅ Answer: D
Q5. Sonal adopts a 2-month-old child from an orphanage. Her employer denies maternity leave arguing that older children do not require integration time.
What is the correct legal position?
A. The denial is incorrect as older children may require more adjustment and care
B. The denial is correct as maternity leave is only for infants
C. The denial is valid if mentioned in company policy
D. The denial depends on the nature of adoption
✅ Answer: A