Maternity benefits under Code on Social Security 2020: Expanding the scope of reproductive justice and workplace protection

In this 'Leading Questions' piece, Astha Sharma and Pratibha Yadav explain how the Code on Social Security, 2020 consolidates and broadens maternity protections, framing them as rights tied to dignity and reproductive justice.

Question: The Code on Social Security, 2020, was introduced as part of India’s labour law reforms. What was the legislative intent behind subsuming welfare legislations such as the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 into a consolidated framework?

Answer: The Code on Social Security, 2020 was enacted as part of India’s labour law reforms to consolidate multiple fragmented welfare legislations into simple statutory codes. Earlier, the Indian social security regime was run by multiple pieces of legislation covering various areas of social welfare, such as pension and provident fund, employee compensation, insurance schemes, and provision of gratuity, among other things often resulting in overlaps and procedural complexity.

The Code integrates legislations such as the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and introduces digitized compliance mechanisms, including electronic registration and record-keeping. Importantly, the Code expands social security coverage to gig workers, platform workers, and workers in the unorganized sector, thereby broadening the scope of maternity protection as a measure of social justice, gender equality, and workplace dignity.

At the same time, concerns remain regarding whether consolidation under a single code may dilute the focused protection previously available under specialized welfare legislation. Consequently, much of the contemporary discussion around the Code centers on balancing ease of compliance with the substantive protection of employee rights.

Question: How does the Code on Social Security, 2020, conceptualise maternity benefits, and what is the broader constitutional philosophy underlying such protections?

Answer: The Code conceptualizes maternity benefits as a protection linked to dignity, reproductive rights, and economic security rather than merely a statutory employment benefit so that female workers don’t feel forced to choose between motherhood and employment in an enterprise. Section 60 of the Code grants paid maternity leave and related benefits to women during pregnancy, childbirth, adoption, and commissioning motherhood.

Maternity benefits are supported by multiple provisions of the Constitution flowing from Articles 14, 15(3), 21, and particularly Article 42, which directs the State to secure humane working conditions and maternity relief. The understanding of maternity relief has been progressively expanded by judicial interpretations where Courts have consistently held that maternity benefits are not charitable concessions but essential protections ensuring substantive equality in the workplace.

Judicial interpretation has also expanded the discourse to include reproductive autonomy, decisional privacy, and caregiving rights, thereby situating maternity protection within a broader framework of reproductive justice.

Question: What are the eligibility requirements and financial entitlements available to women employees under the maternity benefit provisions of the Code?

Answer: Under the Code, a woman employee must have worked for at least 80 days during the twelve months immediately preceding the expected date of delivery or, in the case of adoption, prior to the date on which the child is handed over to her.

Once eligible, the employee is entitled to maternity benefits calculated on the basis of average daily wages earned during the three months preceding childbirth or adoption so as to ensure wage continuity and financial stability during pregnancy and childcare.

The Code also retains safeguards against dismissal during maternity leave and prohibits assignment of arduous work during pregnancy. However, implementation challenges persist, particularly in the informal sector and among smaller establishments where maternity compliance is often viewed as financially burdensome.

Question: How has the Code on Social Security, 2020, expanded the understanding of maternity benefits beyond biological motherhood?

Answer: The Code expands the concept of maternity benefits beyond biological motherhood by recognising adoptive and commissioning mothers within the statutory framework. This reflects an evolving understanding that caregiving responsibilities and emotional bonding are not confined to biological childbirth.

The implementation of provisions has raised significant legal and practical questions. A considerable issue arose under Section 60(4) of the Code, which restricted benefits for adoptive mothers to cases where the adopted child was below three months of age. In Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 246, the Supreme Court observed that maternity benefits cannot be viewed solely from the perspective of post-childbirth recovery and recognized the importance of caregiving, emotional attachment, and child welfare in adoptive motherhood.

The judgment reflects a broader and more inclusive interpretation of labour welfare legislation in light of changing family structures.

Question: How has the constitutional understanding of maternity benefits evolved in recent years?

Answer: Over the years, the constitutional understanding of maternity benefits has evolved from a limited welfare measure to a broader rights-based guarantee linked to dignity, equality, and reproductive autonomy.

As discussed above, the evolution is rooted in Article 14, 15(3), 21 and 42. More recently, Article 21 has become central through the expansion of jurisprudence on dignity, privacy, and reproductive autonomy.

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), (2000) 3 SCC 224, the Supreme Court extended maternity benefits to daily wage workers, recognizing maternity protection as a matter of social justice. Similarly, in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1, the Apex Court recognized reproductive autonomy as part of personal liberty under Article 21.

More recently, in Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 246, the Supreme Court recognized that reproductive autonomy also extends to adoption and caregiving rights.

Constitutional discourse has therefore shifted from viewing maternity protection as a limited biological necessity to recognizing it as part of a broader framework of reproductive justice, gender equality, and inclusive workplace participation.

Question: What are some of the major legal and practical challenges that continue to arise in the implementation of maternity benefit laws in India?

Answer: Despite legislative progress, maternity benefit laws continue to face major implementation challenges in India. A significant concern is limited reach of maternity protections within the informal sector where women often lack formal employment protections and social security access.

Another issue is the employer-funded nature of maternity benefits, which some establishments perceive as financially burdensome, occasionally leading to indirect discrimination against women employees.

Further, workplace stigma, career setbacks after maternity leave, lack of awareness regarding legal entitlements, and weak enforcement mechanisms also remain persistent concerns. Additionally, debates continue regarding the need for gender-neutral caregiving policies and broader parental leave frameworks.

These challenges indicate that effective maternity protection requires not only statutory recognition but also stronger institutional support and workplace reforms.

Question: How do you see maternity benefit jurisprudence evolving in India in the coming years?

Answer: Maternity benefit jurisprudence in India is likely to evolve toward a more inclusive and rights-oriented understanding of caregiving, workplace equality, and family structures.

Recent judicial developments indicate a shift from viewing maternity protection solely as a biological issue toward recognizing it as part of dignity, reproductive autonomy, and substantive equality. Future developments may include greater recognition of adoptive parents, commissioning parents, single parents, and gender-neutral caregiving models.

There may also be increased consideration of social insurance-based funding mechanisms with greater State participation to reduce the burden on employers while expanding coverage to informal workers.

The future of maternity jurisprudence will likely be shaped by constitutional principles, labour rights, gender justice, and evolving social realities.

Astha Sharma is a Partner and Pratibha Yadav is a Senior Associate at AQUILAW.