New Delhi: The Supreme Court asked the Centre to clarify the rationale behind the clause in the Maternity Benefit Act, which allows benefits like 12 weeks of maternity leave only to women who adopt children aged less than three months.
The matter came up before a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal. The bench shot a volley of questions at the Centre's counsel.
Justice Pardiwala asked, what is the idea of saying that a child has to be three months or less? He further queried, what is the object of having a provision to grant maternity leave to take care of a child? "Whether it is biological or any kind of mother?" the bench asked the counsel.
The apex court was hearing a PIL challenging the constitutionality of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, which entitles maternity period benefits for a period of 12 weeks to only those mothers who are adopting a child below the age of three months.
The Centre’s counsel contended before the bench that there is a huge difference between a biological mother and other mothers. The bench asked, what is the rationale in granting maternity benefits to only a woman who adopts children aged less than three months.
The bench observed that the intent of maternity leave is to allow a mother to care for her child, regardless of whether she is a biological or adoptive mother. The apex court asked the Centre's counsel to file a better affidavit and scheduled the matter for further hearing after four weeks.
The PIL has been filed by an adoptive mother, who has challenged the constitutionality of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act. The petitioner has argued that the provision was contrary not only to the scheme and object of the Maternity Benefit Act and in particular the 2017 amendment but also in conflict with the letter and spirit of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015.
The plea contended that the provision did not take into consideration the procedure of adoption envisaged in the JJ Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. The petitioner also contended that even assuming the child is either orphaned or surrendered at birth, then it is almost impossible for a mother to adopt a child who is less than 3 months of age.
