Motherhood is often understood through the biological process of pregnancy and childbirth. However, is giving birth the only way a woman experiences motherhood? Does an adoptive mother experience less responsibility, affection or emotional attachment towards her child? Does a working woman cease to deserve professional opportunities because she chooses to become a mother?
These questions take us beyond the traditional understanding of maternity benefits.
Maternity protection is not simply about granting leave before and after childbirth. It is about recognising a woman’s dignity, protecting her economic independence and ensuring that motherhood does not become a reason for exclusion from employment.
Children also need affection, emotional security and parental care. These needs do not arise exclusively through biological childbirth. They also arise when a child becomes part of a family through adoption.
India’s maternity legislation has gradually developed from a limited labour welfare measure into a broader framework of social security and equality. Recent judicial developments, particularly the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India (2026), provide an important opportunity to examine this journey.
The historical beginning of maternity protection in India
The history of maternity protection in India can be traced to the early twentieth century.
During the colonial period, women participated in factory work, plantations and other forms of employment. Pregnancy and childbirth often exposed working women to physical hardship, loss of income and insecure employment.
The Bombay Maternity Benefit Act, 1929, was among the earliest provincial legislative measures recognising maternity benefits for working women.
The Royal Commission on Labour in India, whose report was published in 1931, recommended extending maternity protection. Subsequently, different provinces introduced their own maternity benefit legislation. The Mines Maternity Benefit Act, 1941, also extended protection to women employed in mines.
However, these laws differed in their eligibility requirements, duration of leave and payment provisions. The need for a more uniform national framework gradually became evident.
The constitutional foundation: Maternity protection as social justice
The Constitution of India, which came into force in 1950, established important principles supporting maternity protection.
Although the Constitution does not expressly recognise maternity leave as a separate fundamental right, several provisions provide its constitutional foundation.
Article 14 – Equality before law
Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. It provides protection against arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of women in employment.
Article 15(3) – Special provisions for women and children
Article 15(3) enables the State to make special provisions for women and children. It recognises that protective measures may be necessary to achieve substantive equality.
Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty
Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. Its judicial interpretation has developed to include human dignity, personal autonomy and reproductive rights.
Article 42 – Just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief
Article 42 directs the State to make provisions for securing just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.
Although Article 42 is a Directive Principle of State Policy and is not independently enforceable as a fundamental right, it provides an important constitutional direction for labour and social security legislation.
Together, these provisions establish that maternity protection is not merely an employment concession. It is connected with equality, dignity, health and social justice.
The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948
The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, introduced an important social insurance framework for eligible workers.
Section 50 of the Act recognises maternity benefit as part of the social insurance system. It provides for maternity benefits to insured women subject to the prescribed conditions.
However, the ESI framework does not cover every working woman. A broader statutory framework was therefore necessary to address maternity protection in other establishments.
The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961: A significant legislative milestone
The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, marked an important stage in the development of maternity protection in India.
The Act was enacted to regulate the employment of women in certain establishments for specified periods before and after childbirth and to provide maternity benefits.
Under its original framework, eligible women were entitled to 12 weeks of maternity benefit.
The legislation also provided protection against dismissal or discharge during maternity-related absence and addressed other employment conditions connected with pregnancy and childbirth.
Its importance lies in recognising the economic consequences of motherhood. A woman should not be forced to sacrifice her livelihood simply because she requires time to recover from childbirth and care for her child.
Judicial interpretation: From statutory entitlement to human dignity
The judiciary has played an important role in interpreting maternity legislation in a manner consistent with its social welfare objectives.
B. Shah v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore & Others (1977)
In this case, the Supreme Court considered how maternity benefits should be calculated under Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
The issue included whether Sundays and rest days should be excluded while calculating maternity benefits.
The Court adopted a beneficial interpretation of the legislation and held that the benefit must cover all days falling within the relevant period of absence, including Sundays and rest days.
The judgment demonstrated that maternity legislation must be interpreted in a manner that protects the actual financial entitlement of working women.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) (2000)
This judgment was an important development for women employed on daily wages.
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi had denied maternity benefits to women working on muster rolls on the ground that they were not regular employees.
The Supreme Court rejected this restrictive approach. It recognised that maternity benefits should not be denied merely because a woman is employed on a daily-wage basis.
The judgment strengthened the connection between maternity protection and the constitutional principles reflected in Articles 14, 15(3), 39 and 42.
Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Others (2022), 2022 INSC 834
The Supreme Court examined maternity leave in the context of changing family structures and the rights of working women. The judgment concerned Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which governs the grant of maternity leave to eligible female government servants.
The Court recognised that families may take different forms and that maternity-related policies should not be interpreted through narrow or conventional ideas of family structure. It emphasised the importance of recognising the diverse circumstances of women and their family responsibilities.
The decision highlighted the need for employment rules to respond to changing social realities while protecting women’s reproductive rights, dignity and participation in professional life.
Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (2023)
This case concerned a woman employed on a contractual basis.
The Supreme Court held that once a woman satisfies the statutory eligibility requirements and becomes entitled to maternity benefits, the entitlement does not automatically end merely because her contractual employment expires.
The judgment was significant for contractual and temporary employees. It recognised that statutory maternity benefits may continue beyond the contractual period of employment.
These decisions demonstrate the judiciary’s contribution towards ensuring that maternity protection is not restricted by narrow interpretations of employment status or family circumstances.
The Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017: Expanding the scope of protection
The Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, introduced significant changes to the existing legislation.
One of its most important changes was the extension of paid maternity leave from 12 weeks to 26 weeks for eligible women having fewer than two surviving children.
The amendment also recognised the circumstances of adoptive and commissioning mothers.
Its important provisions included:
- Adoptive mothers: Twelve weeks of maternity benefit for eligible women legally adopting a child below three months of age.
- Commissioning mothers: Twelve weeks of maternity benefit.
- Work from home: An employer may permit work from home after maternity leave where the nature of work allows it and mutually agreed conditions are established.
- Crèche facilities: Establishments employing 50 or more employees are required to provide crèche facilities.
- Crèche visits: Women are entitled to four visits to the crèche during working hours, including the interval for rest.
The amendment represented an important recognition that maternity protection should extend beyond the physical process of childbirth.
However, the three-month age restriction imposed on adoptive mothers subsequently raised serious constitutional questions.
The Code on Social Security, 2020: A consolidated framework
The Code on Social Security, 2020, was introduced to consolidate several social security laws into a broader legislative framework.
The relevant provisions of the Code came into force on 21 November 2025, bringing maternity benefits within Chapter VI of the consolidated legislation.
The Code retains important protections, including maternity benefits for eligible women, medical bonus, nursing breaks, crèche facilities and protection against adverse employment treatment.
Section 60(4) addresses maternity benefits for adoptive and commissioning mothers. Its original wording retained the three-month age restriction for adopted children.
This provision subsequently became the subject of a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court.
Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India (2026): Recognising motherhood beyond biological childbirth
One of the significant developments in maternity jurisprudence came through the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India & Others, 2026 INSC 246, decided on 17 March 2026.
The procedural history of this case is important.
The petitioner originally approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in 2021, challenging Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. She questioned the restriction that limited maternity benefits for adoptive mothers to those adopting children below three months of age.
However, the Code on Social Security, 2020, came into force on 21 November 2025. Section 60(4) of the Code contained the corresponding provision.
The Supreme Court, by its order dated 12 December 2025, permitted the petitioner to take appropriate steps to challenge the new provision. The petitioner subsequently filed an application to amend her petition and include Section 60(4) of the Code.
The Court considered the amended challenge.
The central issue was whether restricting maternity benefits to adoptive mothers who adopted children below three months of age violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that the restriction was unconstitutional because it created an unreasonable distinction between adoptive mothers based on the age of their adopted children.
The Court recognised that maternity protection is associated with the process of motherhood rather than exclusively with the biological process of childbirth.
An adopted child requires affection, attention, protection and emotional security. These needs do not disappear merely because the child is older than three months.
The Court also considered reproductive autonomy and the best interests of the child. It recognised that adoption is an expression of reproductive and decisional autonomy under Article 21.
Importantly, the Supreme Court did not merely make an observation about the restriction. It directed that Section 60(4) of the Code should be read without the three-month age restriction.
Accordingly, the provision now reads to provide 12 weeks of maternity benefit to a woman who legally adopts a child or becomes a commissioning mother, calculated from the date the child is handed over to her.
The judgment is significant because it recognises that the purpose of maternity benefits is connected with motherhood, emotional bonding and caregiving, and not exclusively with biological childbirth.
Motherhood is not merely a legal act of adoption or a biological event. It is a relationship that develops through love, affection, emotional bonding and responsibility.
The judgment also addressed the importance of paternity leave. The Supreme Court urged the Union Government to introduce paternity leave as a social security benefit, recognising that childcare should be a shared parental responsibility.
Maternity protection beyond leave: Rakhi Bisht v. Union of India (2026)
Another significant development came from the Delhi High Court in Rakhi Bisht v. Union of India & Another, W.P.(C) 14785/2024, decided on 31 August 2026.
The case concerned allegations of professional disadvantage following pregnancy and maternity leave.
The petitioner alleged that her professional responsibilities and managerial authority had been affected after she disclosed her pregnancy and returned from maternity leave. She also raised concerns about her reassignment, career progression and the absence of a functional crèche facility.
The employer disputed several of these allegations. It maintained that organisational changes and business requirements had influenced the reassignment.
The High Court examined the records and the employer’s own explanations. It found that the petitioner’s previous position had been filled during her maternity leave without adequate prior communication or consultation. It also noted that the employer had not properly considered or explained what position would be assigned to her when she returned.
Importantly, the Court clarified that the protection against disadvantage under Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and the corresponding Section 68 of the Code on Social Security, 2020, extends beyond maintaining salary and designation.
The Court laid down that a woman returning from maternity leave should ordinarily be restored to her previous position. Where this is genuinely impracticable for bona fide organisational reasons, she should be placed in an equivalent position with substantially similar pay, grade, status, responsibilities, managerial authority and prospects for career advancement.
However, the Court expressly stated that it was not deciding whether the Treasury position ultimately offered to the petitioner was equivalent to her earlier position. That question would require a separate evidentiary examination.
The Court nevertheless found that the treatment established by the admitted records was unfair and inconsistent with the protection afforded under maternity law.
It directed the employer to pay ₹10 lakh as compensation and ₹1.5 lakh towards legal costs. It also directed the Union Government to frame rules, schemes or directions within six months to improve the implementation of maternity protections, including pregnancy-related accommodation, return-to-work protection, lactation support, crèche facilities and grievance redressal.
This judgment demonstrates that maternity protection must continue even after a woman returns to employment.
A woman should not lose her professional identity, authority or opportunities for career advancement because she has become a mother.
Recent developments: Protection for women in different employment arrangements
The relevance of maternity benefits is also reflected in the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision in Pushpa Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 SCC OnLine Chh 21210, decided on 27 October 2026.
In this decision, the Chhattisgarh High Court considered the maternity benefit claim of a woman working as a Guest Lecturer. The Court addressed the question of whether maternity benefits could be denied merely because the woman was not appointed as a regular employee.
The Court recognised that employment status alone should not defeat maternity protection, particularly when a woman performs duties and responsibilities similar to those of regular employees. It directed the authorities to consider her claim for unpaid salary during her maternity leave.
The decision reinforces the principle that maternity protection should extend to women working under different employment arrangements and that the purpose of social security legislation must not be defeated by restrictive employment classifications.
The continuing gap between legal protection and practical reality
Despite legislative developments and judicial recognition, the practical enjoyment of maternity benefits remains a serious concern.
Women working in informal employment, domestic work, agriculture and other insecure occupations may not have the same access to maternity protection as women in formally organised establishments.
Temporary employment, contractual arrangements and uncertain income can make it difficult for women to exercise their statutory rights.
Another concern is the possibility of indirect discrimination in recruitment and promotion.
If employers perceive maternity leave only as an additional financial burden, women may face disadvantages even before they become mothers. Such practices undermine the objective of maternity legislation.
There is also a need to recognise the economic value of unpaid care work. Childcare and household responsibilities contribute to the functioning of families and the wider economy, even though such work is rarely recognised through direct remuneration.
Maternity protection must therefore be accompanied by effective implementation, accessible grievance mechanisms, employer accountability and broader social security coverage.
Towards shared parental responsibility
The discussion of maternity benefits should not end with women’s rights alone.
Childcare is a shared responsibility of parents and society. Although mothers often undertake a significant portion of early childcare, fathers also play an important role in a child’s emotional and psychological development.
In Hamsaanandini Nanduri, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of paternity leave and urged the Union Government to recognise it as a social security benefit.
This observation raises an important policy question: should the responsibility of early childcare continue to fall predominantly on women?
Recognising paternity leave would encourage shared parenting, support mothers and promote greater equality within families and workplaces.
The objective should not be to reduce maternity protection but to develop a broader parental support system in which both parents can participate meaningfully in raising their children.
The historical journey of maternity benefits in India reflects a gradual transformation in the legal understanding of motherhood.
From the early maternity protection measures of the colonial period to the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, the 2017 amendment and the Code on Social Security, 2020, the legal framework has continued to evolve.
The judicial decisions discussed above demonstrate that maternity protection must extend beyond childbirth, temporary absence from employment and the payment of wages.
The law must recognise emotional bonding, caregiving, economic security and the professional identity of women.
An adoptive mother should not be treated as less deserving of maternity protection because she did not give birth. Similarly, a woman returning from maternity leave should not be treated as less capable of professional advancement because she has assumed the responsibilities of motherhood.
Ultimately, maternity protection should recognise both the needs of children and the rights of women as equal participants in the workforce.
Motherhood is not defined by blood alone. It is expressed through love, affection, protection and responsibility. The purpose of maternity benefits should be to provide the time, security and dignity necessary for these relationships to develop without forcing women to sacrifice their economic independence or professional identity.
A society that values children and women’s equality must recognise that caring for a child is not a private burden to be carried by mothers alone. It is a shared social responsibility.
Aswani S. Babu is a law graduate from the University of Delhi with experience in legal research and litigation support across civil, criminal, family, labour and motor accident matters.
