What is the common examiner trap about Polity in UPSC exams?

They may ask about the duration of leave for biological mothers (26 weeks) versus adoptive mothers (12 weeks) or confuse the old restrictive age limit (3 months) with the new judgment (no age limit). Another trap is swapping the year of the key amendment (2017) with the year of the original Act (1961).

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: 12 weeks of paid maternity leave for adoptive mothers. 2. Target this Nodal Body: Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA). 3. Target this Legal Point: Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020 (previously Section 5(4) of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961).

PolitySocial Justice

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 2 of 20

Supreme Court Strikes Down Social Security Code Section 60(4), Grants 12 Weeks Maternity Leave to All Adoptive Mothers

Q: Under which ministry does the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) function?

Ministry of Women & Child Development, CARA is a statutory body that functions as the nodal agency for adoption and operates under the Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India, as mentioned in the article context.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court judgment on maternity leave: 1. It struck down a provision that limited paid maternity leave to mothers adopting children under three months of age. 2. It directed that adoptive mothers are entitled to 26 weeks of paid maternity leave, equal to biological mothers. 3. It referred to adoption as part of the 'right to reproductive autonomy' and emphasized the importance of leave for child development. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Both 1 and 3, Statement 1 is correct: The Court struck down Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020, which had the three-month age limit. Statement 2 is incorrect: The judgment grants 12 weeks of paid leave to adoptive mothers, not 26 weeks (which is for biological mothers). Statement 3 is correct: The Court indeed linked adoption to reproductive autonomy and stressed the role of leave in bonding and development.

Q: According to the RTI data cited in the article, what percentage of children adopted at the time were under the age of three months?

Less than 5%, The petitioner, Hamsaanandini Nanduri, revealed through an RTI application to CARA that less than 5% of children adopted at that time were under three months old. This data highlighted the ineffectiveness of the previous restrictive law.

Q: What was the primary constitutional rationale used by the Supreme Court to strike down the restrictive provision on maternity leave for adoptive mothers?

Violation of fundamental rights guaranteeing equality and non-discrimination., The petitioner contended, and the Court implicitly affirmed, that the discriminatory provision (granting 26 weeks to biological mothers but only 12 weeks with an age cap to adoptive mothers) violated fundamental rights to equality. The Court emphasized equal rights and obligations for all mothers, aligning with constitutional guarantees against arbitrary discrimination.

Polity Social IssuesCORE

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

21 Mar 2026

~2 min

Source: The Hindu

Key Data:12 weeks paid maternity leave26 weeks maternity leaveSection 60(4) Social Security Code 2020Section 5(4) Maternity Benefit Act 1961Less than 5% adoptions under 3 months

Bodies:Supreme CourtCARA

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.Supreme Court struck down Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020, which limited 12-week paid maternity leave to mothers adopting children under three months.

2.The Court declared motherhood extends beyond biology, linking adoption to the 'right to reproductive autonomy' and emphasizing its role in child development.

3.Judgment creates a uniform 12-week paid maternity leave for all adoptive mothers, addressing a gap left by the 2017 Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment expanding maternity benefits, striking down a discriminatory provision that limited paid leave for adoptive mothers. This ruling recognizes adoption as a fundamental right and mandates equal leave for all mothers, irrespective of biology, strengthening social welfare jurisprudence.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Section Struck DownSection 60(4) of Social Security Code, 2020

Previous ProvisionSection 5(4) of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961

Leave for Adoptive Mothers12 weeks paid maternity leave

Leave for Biological Mothers26 weeks (since 2017 Amendment)

Adoption AuthorityCARA (Central Adoption Resource Authority)

1-Minute Revision

›Section Struck Down: Section 60(4) of Social Security Code, 2020
›Previous Provision: Section 5(4) of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
›Target this Data: 12 weeks of paid maternity leave for adoptive mothers.
›Target this Nodal Body: Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA).
›Target this Legal Point: Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020 (previously Section 5(4) of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961).

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

News Snapshot

⚖️

Landmark Judgment

SC struck down a discriminatory age limit, granting 12-week paid maternity leave to all adoptive mothers regardless of the child's age.

👩‍👧

Redefining Motherhood

Court declared motherhood cannot be seen through a 'narrow lens of biology' and recognized adoption as part of reproductive autonomy.

📜

Legal Evolution

The ruling corrects an inadequacy in the 2017 Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, which first introduced leave for adoptive mothers but with a restrictive age cap.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Statutory maternity benefits in India began with the Bombay Maternity Benefit Act, 1929. The central Maternity Benefit Act of 1961 provided 12 weeks of paid leave. A significant amendment in 2017 extended leave for biological mothers to 26 weeks and, for the first time, introduced 12 weeks of leave for adoptive or surrogate mothers—but only if the child was below three months old. This age restriction was challenged as discriminatory.

Core Analysis & Implications

The Supreme Court's judgment is a profound expansion of social rights. By invalidating Section 60(4), it eliminates an arbitrary distinction that disadvantaged older adoptees and their parents. The Court grounded its reasoning in constitutional fundamental rights, the psychological need for maternal bonding, and data showing lengthy adoption procedures. It highlighted that less than 5% of adoptions involved children under three months, rendering the old law ineffective for most. The ruling mandates equal treatment, ensuring adoptive mothers receive the same 12-week benefit to foster emotional attachment and child development.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

This judgment sets a precedent for interpreting welfare legislation in a gender-just and inclusive manner. It directs the Union government to review and harmonize all related laws, including provisions for paternity leave, to create a comprehensive parental leave policy. The ruling also pressures employers, especially private firms, to implement inclusive leave policies, potentially influencing future labor code reforms and corporate HR standards nationwide.

Key Facts at a Glance

Section Struck DownSection 60(4) of Social Security Code, 2020

Previous ProvisionSection 5(4) of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961

Leave for Adoptive Mothers12 weeks paid maternity leave

Leave for Biological Mothers26 weeks (since 2017 Amendment)

Adoption AuthorityCARA (Central Adoption Resource Authority)

You've read the full analysis. Now test your understanding.

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

Under which ministry does the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) function?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC, SSC

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court judgment on maternity leave:

1. It struck down a provision that limited paid maternity leave to mothers adopting children under three months of age.

2. It directed that adoptive mothers are entitled to 26 weeks of paid maternity leave, equal to biological mothers.

3. It referred to adoption as part of the 'right to reproductive autonomy' and emphasized the importance of leave for child development.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, SSC, State PSC

According to the RTI data cited in the article, what percentage of children adopted at the time were under the age of three months?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC, State PSC

What was the primary constitutional rationale used by the Supreme Court to strike down the restrictive provision on maternity leave for adoptive mothers?

All 15 MCQs ▸

Read original article from The Hindu

You finished this topic

Practice 3 MCQs from this news Next Article

Explore Related Topics

PolityView Topic MCQs →Social IssuesView Topic MCQs →

PreviousJal Jeevan Mission 2.0 Gets ₹1.51 Lakh Crore, Sets Four Mandatory Reforms and 'Sujalam Bharat' Digital Framework Next India Opposes China-Backed WTO IFD Agreement Amid 128 Nations Support, Seeks Permanent PSH Solution

Related Current Affairs

Polity Current Affairs

Rajya Sabha Passes Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill 2026, Raising Judge Strength to 38

The Rajya Sabha has cleared the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, raising the apex court's sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India. The Bill replaces a May ordinance, but Opposition MPs questioned the ordinance route and highlighted the persistent diversity deficit in judicial appointments. This is a high-yield Polity topic for Prelims and Mains, with concrete data on SC/ST/OBC/minority/women representation and judiciary infrastructure.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance of Delhi-NCR Sexual Assaults, Cites Article 21 and Nirbhaya Parallel

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of recent sexual assault cases in Delhi-NCR, flagging lax patrolling and administrative failures that make public spaces 'zones of high risk'. The court invoked Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and drew a painful parallel to the 2012 Nirbhaya case, demanding accountability and a measurable response from authorities. This has major implications for law enforcement accountability, women's safety, and judicial oversight.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Directs FSSAI to Set Timeline for FoPL Phase-II High Fat-Sugar-Salt Warning Labels

The Supreme Court has asked FSSAI to provide a scientifically justified and clearly defined timeline for the second phase of Front-of-Package Labelling (FoPL) that warns about high fat, sugar, or salt in packaged foods. The court warned that without a deadline, implementation could be indefinitely postponed and also flagged gaps in label design and school-level nutritional literacy. The next hearing is scheduled for September 10.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Rules NCSC Cannot Issue Binding Directions Under Article 338

The Supreme Court clarified that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) has only recommendatory and advisory powers under Article 338, not adjudicatory powers. It cannot issue binding orders in service disputes. This ruling sets boundaries for constitutional commissions under Articles 338, 338A, and 338B.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Landmark Judgment on Sex Work: Article 142, Consent, and Rights Framework

The Supreme Court in May 2026 delivered a landmark judgment on sex work, holding that consenting adult sex workers cannot be forcibly rescued and affirming their constitutional rights despite social disapproval. The judgment invokes Article 142 for legal force, spans nearly 300 pages, and departs from global anti-trafficking assumptions, but raises concerns about institutional implementation and caste discrimination.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Nine-Judge Bench Revisits 'Industry' Definition: Bangalore Water Supply Case (1978) Under Scrutiny

The Supreme Court's nine-judge bench is set to rule on the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, potentially expanding or contracting labour protections for workers in hospitals, educational institutions, and government welfare schemes. This landmark decision could impact millions of employees and reshape industrial relations law.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Rules Police Cannot Independently Investigate Sex Determination Cases Under PC&PNDT Act

The Supreme Court has ruled that police cannot independently investigate offences under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. Only the Appropriate Authority, a specialised body under the Act, can investigate. Police may assist but cannot take over the investigation, and any separate criminal offences (IPC/BNS) can be investigated independently. This clarifies a long-standing legal confusion and is crucial for understanding the enforcement mechanism of this social legislation.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Releases New Gender Sensitivity Handbook, Replaces 2023 Version; Recommends Survivor-Centric Language & Trauma-Informed Court Practices

The Supreme Court has released a new report titled 'Judgments and Gender' replacing its 2023 handbook on combating gender stereotypes. The report, drafted by an expert committee headed by former SC judge Justice Aniruddha Bose, provides practical guidelines for judges to use survivor-centric language, avoid morality-laden expressions, and adopt trauma-informed courtroom practices. This is crucial for UPSC as it reflects judicial reforms in gender sensitivity and victim protection.

Start Today's Quiz(15 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

15 Qs • 5-7 Mins

Supreme Court Strikes Down Social Security Code Section 60(4), Grants 12 Weeks Maternity Leave to All Adoptive Mothers

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Landmark Judgment

Redefining Motherhood

Legal Evolution

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance