LABOUR LAW
LABOUR LAW
Hamsaanandini Nanduri versus Union of India and others, twenty twenty-six INSC two hundred forty-six, decided by the Supreme Court on seventeenth March twenty twenty-six. It is a two-judge bench judgment by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, concurred in by Justice R. Mahadevan.
Facts of the case
Facts of the case
The petitioner was an adoptive mother of two children. She filed a writ petition under Article thirty-two of the Constitution challenging the validity of Section five sub-section four of the Maternity Benefit Act, nineteen sixty-one, as amended in twenty seventeen. Later, because the Code on Social Security, twenty twenty came into force and replaced the earlier provision, the challenge was shifted to Section sixty sub-section four of the twenty twenty Code, which was the corresponding provision.
The problem was this: Section sixty sub-section four gave twelve weeks maternity benefit to a woman who legally adopts a child, but only if the adopted child is below three months of age. So if a working woman adopted a child of four months, six months, one year, or even two years, she got no maternity benefit at all under that provision. The petitioner argued that this age limit was unfair, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.
She also argued that the adoption process under the Juvenile Justice Act and Adoption Regulations itself takes time. By the time a child is legally declared free for adoption and handed over, in many cases the child would already be older than three months. So the benefit existed in the law, but in real life it would often be impossible to use.