<p>The Supreme Court agreed to hear on April 28 a plea challenging the Constitutional validity of a provision of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which states that a woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three months would be entitled to maternity leave.</p>.<p>The petition submitted that the purported 12 weeks of maternity benefit to adoptive mothers is not only a "mere lip service but when juxtaposed with the maternity benefit of 26 weeks provided to biological mothers, fails to stand even the basic scrutiny of Part III of the Constitution which is wedded to the concept of non-arbitrariness."</p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala took note of the submissions of a lawyer who mentioned the matter seeking urgent hearing.</p>.<p>The top court on October 1, 2021, had issued notices to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Ministry of Women & Child Development while seeking their responses on the PIL, which said Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 was discriminatory and arbitrary.</p>.<p>A woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three months or a commissioning mother shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of twelve weeks from the date the child is handed over to the adopting mother or the commissioning mother, as the case may be.</p>.<p> The top court was hearing a plea filed by Karnataka resident Hamsaanandini Nanduri challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.</p>.<p>"Section 5(4) apart from being discriminatory and arbitrary towards the adoptive mothers, also arbitrarily discriminates against orphaned, abandoned or surrendered children above the age of three months, which is completely incompatible to the object of the Maternity Benefit Act as well as the Juvenile Justice Act," the plea submitted.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court agreed to hear on April 28 a plea challenging the Constitutional validity of a provision of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which states that a woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three months would be entitled to maternity leave.</p>.<p>The petition submitted that the purported 12 weeks of maternity benefit to adoptive mothers is not only a "mere lip service but when juxtaposed with the maternity benefit of 26 weeks provided to biological mothers, fails to stand even the basic scrutiny of Part III of the Constitution which is wedded to the concept of non-arbitrariness."</p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala took note of the submissions of a lawyer who mentioned the matter seeking urgent hearing.</p>.<p>The top court on October 1, 2021, had issued notices to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Ministry of Women & Child Development while seeking their responses on the PIL, which said Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 was discriminatory and arbitrary.</p>.<p>A woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three months or a commissioning mother shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of twelve weeks from the date the child is handed over to the adopting mother or the commissioning mother, as the case may be.</p>.<p> The top court was hearing a plea filed by Karnataka resident Hamsaanandini Nanduri challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.</p>.<p>"Section 5(4) apart from being discriminatory and arbitrary towards the adoptive mothers, also arbitrarily discriminates against orphaned, abandoned or surrendered children above the age of three months, which is completely incompatible to the object of the Maternity Benefit Act as well as the Juvenile Justice Act," the plea submitted.</p>