Why this is a direct Code case
The Court recorded that the Code on Social Security came into effect on 21 November 2025 and that section 60(4) is the existing pari materia provision replacing the challenged section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act for the issue before it. The amended petition therefore directly challenged section 60(4).
Ratio / operative result
- The distinction between adoptive mothers based on whether the child is below three months lacked a rational nexus with the object of maternity protection.
- The age-based classification violated Article 14 and also failed under Article 21’s dignity/reproductive-autonomy analysis.
- The Court additionally found the cut-off practically unworkable in light of the adoption process.
- The Court directed section 60(4) to be meaningfully read as entitling a woman who legally adopts a child, or a commissioning mother, to twelve weeks of maternity benefit from handover, without the three-month adopted-child age condition.
Practical example
A covered employee legally adopts a child aged eight months. A policy that refuses the section 60(4) maternity benefit solely because the child is older than three months would conflict with the Supreme Court’s 17 March 2026 construction. Other coverage and entitlement conditions still need to be checked.
SEO Q&A
Can an adoptive mother get maternity benefit if the adopted child is older than three months?
The Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling removed the section 60(4) three-month age cut-off as unconstitutional. The remaining statutory conditions and coverage must still be applied.
How much leave did the Supreme Court preserve?
The Court’s reading retains the statutory twelve-week maternity-benefit period from the date the child is handed over to the adopting or commissioning mother.
Is this only a Maternity Benefit Act case?
No. The Court expressly treated section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 as the live provision and decided the amended challenge to that section.