Recently, the Supreme Court of India seeks response from the Centre regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that addresses the issue of maternity benefits for adoptive mothers when the adopted child is under three months old.
A division bench consisting of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Hamsaanandini, an adoptive mother of two. The PIL challenges the constitutionality of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, arguing that the provision discriminates against adoptive mothers by limiting maternity benefits to those adopting children under three months old.
While questioning the rationale behind the legal provision, the bench directed the Union government to submit an affidavit detailing its position on the matter within four weeks.
The Court questioned the rationale behind the requirement that the child must be under three months old to qualify for maternity benefits. He emphasized that the purpose of maternity leave is to enable a mother, whether biological or adoptive, to care for her child.
The PIL argues that Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, which grants adoptive mothers 12 weeks of maternity benefit only if they adopt a child under three months old, is unjust and discriminatory toward adoptive mothers.
The provision has been challenged on the grounds that it fails to account for the adoption process as outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) and the Adoption Regulations of 2017.
The PIL argues that the provision discriminates against mothers who wish to adopt older children or adolescents, and creates an unfair distinction between biological and adoptive mothers. Additionally, it contends that the provision is incompatible with India’s international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which protects the rights of all children under the age of 18.
PIL argues that the provision in question violates Article 19 (1) (G) of the Indian Constitution as it violates the adoptive mother’s freedom to carry on her trade, occupation and business by making it conditional on the age of the child.
Case Title: Hamsanandini Nandur vs. Union of India
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy