<p>By striking down a rule that denied maternity leave to women who adopted children older than three months, the Supreme Court has corrected a legal wrong and endorsed a more inclusive idea of parenthood. </p><p>The rule was part of the Code on Social Security, 2020, which was derived from the Maternity Benefits Act. A bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that adoptive mothers are eligible for paid maternity leave for 12 weeks, just as natural mothers, irrespective of the child’s age. The distinction the rule made between natural and adoptive mothers did not have a rationale and arose from a sense that adoption could not be equated with natural motherhood. The Court rejected this prejudiced view.</p>.<p>It asserted that motherhood cannot be defined solely on biological terms. A mother’s emotional requirements and responses cannot be differentiated based on the age of the adopted child. The earlier restrictions were imposed by ignoring this reality. For an adopted child in a new environment, the physical proximity and care of her mother are essential. As the petitioner, Hamsaanandini Nanduri, contended, the process of adoption often takes more than three months, making the maternity leave provision inaccessible for most of the mothers. While this is a practical problem, the larger issue entails what adoption means to the parents and how it has been recognised by law. The government told the Court that once a child was three months old, there was no “intensive dependency” on the mother as earlier, making it easier for her to resume work. This view was considered narrow and restrictive by the Court. The child needs nurturing, care, and emotional bonding throughout their formative years. Maternity leave is not the employer’s concession; it is the employee’s and her child’s right. With the ruling, the apex court has expanded the jurisprudence of women’s rights and equality in all situations.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Court has also made a case for an extended paternity leave regime. It noted that the early months of a child’s life are irretrievable and a father’s absence during this crucial period may have lasting developmental consequences. Observing that 15 days of paternity leave for government employees is inadequate, the Court said the government may consider legislation recognising paternity leave as a social security benefit. The judgment is significant for its view on the equal status of maternity, whether natural or adoptive, and the gender-neutral idea of parenting, which has yet to gain full legal recognition.</p>
<p>By striking down a rule that denied maternity leave to women who adopted children older than three months, the Supreme Court has corrected a legal wrong and endorsed a more inclusive idea of parenthood. </p><p>The rule was part of the Code on Social Security, 2020, which was derived from the Maternity Benefits Act. A bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that adoptive mothers are eligible for paid maternity leave for 12 weeks, just as natural mothers, irrespective of the child’s age. The distinction the rule made between natural and adoptive mothers did not have a rationale and arose from a sense that adoption could not be equated with natural motherhood. The Court rejected this prejudiced view.</p>.<p>It asserted that motherhood cannot be defined solely on biological terms. A mother’s emotional requirements and responses cannot be differentiated based on the age of the adopted child. The earlier restrictions were imposed by ignoring this reality. For an adopted child in a new environment, the physical proximity and care of her mother are essential. As the petitioner, Hamsaanandini Nanduri, contended, the process of adoption often takes more than three months, making the maternity leave provision inaccessible for most of the mothers. While this is a practical problem, the larger issue entails what adoption means to the parents and how it has been recognised by law. The government told the Court that once a child was three months old, there was no “intensive dependency” on the mother as earlier, making it easier for her to resume work. This view was considered narrow and restrictive by the Court. The child needs nurturing, care, and emotional bonding throughout their formative years. Maternity leave is not the employer’s concession; it is the employee’s and her child’s right. With the ruling, the apex court has expanded the jurisprudence of women’s rights and equality in all situations.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Court has also made a case for an extended paternity leave regime. It noted that the early months of a child’s life are irretrievable and a father’s absence during this crucial period may have lasting developmental consequences. Observing that 15 days of paternity leave for government employees is inadequate, the Court said the government may consider legislation recognising paternity leave as a social security benefit. The judgment is significant for its view on the equal status of maternity, whether natural or adoptive, and the gender-neutral idea of parenting, which has yet to gain full legal recognition.</p>
