SC Flags Need for Paternity Leave Framework

On March 17, 2026, the Supreme Court urged the Union Government to bring in a provision recognizing paternity leave as a social security benefit. The Court observed that parenthood is not a solitary function but a shared responsibility, where both parents contribute to the holistic development of a child.

These observations were made in a case concerning the constitutional validity of Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 (corresponding to Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961), which restricted maternity benefits for adoptive mothers to cases only where the child is below three months of age.

The Court determined that the three-month age limit artificially categorizes adoptive mothers and fails the reasonable classification test under Article 14. It noted that maternity benefits are not solely linked to biological recovery but also encompass emotional bonding and caregiving, which remain equally relevant in cases of adoption. The exclusion of such mothers was therefore under-inclusive and inconsistent with the object of the law.

While examining the broader framework of maternity and childcare benefits, the Court emphasized that caregiving responsibilities are not confined to mothers alone and require institutional support for both parents. It noted that parental leave policies must evolve to reflect contemporary family structures and the shared role of caregivers.

Examining the existing framework under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, which provides 15 days of paternity leave to male government employees, the Court observed that while the concept is not entirely absent, it remains inadequately recognized. The Court then took note of recent legislative developments, including the introduction of a Private Member’s Bill proposing the grant of extended paternity leave, which reflect a growing acknowledgement of the issue.

It was further observed that the absence of paternity leave has significant consequences. First, it reinforces gendered roles in parenting. Secondly, even where a father is willing and desirous of contributing, he is left without a meaningful opportunity to do so.

The Court remarked that when fathers are provided the opportunity to take leave after the birth of a child, they are able to support the mother and share family responsibilities. This support extends to participating in the upbringing and caregiving of the child, assisting with household responsibilities, and remaining emotionally present during this demanding phase.

The court further emphasized that early caregiving, including emotional bonding and nurturing, is not exclusively a maternal function and that enabling both parents to participate meaningfully in childcare promotes child welfare and gender equality. The subtle cost of a father’s absence in early life, though often unarticulated, may shape the depth of the parent-child relationship in later years.