The Supreme Court on Tuesday urged the Central government to come out with a law recognising paternity leave.

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan added that it is up to the Central government to determine the manner in which paternity leave may be extended to fathers of young children, including its duration.

"We urge the Union to come out with a provision recognising paternity leave as a social security benefit. We emphasise that the duration of such leave must be determined in a manner that is responsive to the needs of both the parent and the child," the Court said.

The Court called for such legal recognition of fathers as caregivers of young children, while quashing a provision that restricted maternity benefits when it came to mothers who adopt children over 3 months old.

In its judgment, the Court struck down Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020, which laid down that adoptive mothers will be eligible for maternity leave only if they adopt children who are less than 3 months old.

The Court held that such a distinction works against adoptive mothers as well as adopted children over 3 months old. It concluded that the provision complained of was violative of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The judgment was rendered on a public interest litigation petition filed by one Hamsanandini Nanduri challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

The provision, introduced through the 2017 amendment, grants 12 weeks of maternity benefit to adoptive mothers only where the adopted child is below three months of age. The petitioner contended that this age-based restriction is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

A similar provision was introduced under Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020, which replaced the Maternity Benefit Act while the case was pending.

The Court today struck down the said provision, effectively ruling that uniform maternity benefits must be provided to mothers of young children, whether or not the child is adopted.

In its judgment, the Court also held that the needs of an adoptive child are no different from those of a biological child.

"Although biology has traditionally been the predominant lens through kinship, adoption is an equally valid pathway. Biological factors by themselves do not determine family. An adopted child is not different from natural child," the Court held.