REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Hamsaanandini Nanduri Appellant

V/S

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF W.B. V. ANWAR ALI SARKAR [REFERRED TO]
SHASHIKANT LAXMAN KALE V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. AMBICA MILLS LTD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. M K KANDASWAMI [REFERRED TO]
B SHAH VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT COIMBATORE [REFERRED TO]
R K GARG R K KARANJIA MADHU MEHTA P K SOI S S BEDI VS. UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI KANT PANDEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ASIF HAMEED STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR RAJEEV MAHAJAN JYOTI KUMARI VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR:RAJEEV MAHAJAN:STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR:STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
SITARAM SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED U P STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KHODAY DISTILLERIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. FEMALEWORKERS MUSTER ROLL [REFERRED TO]
BALCO EMPLOYEES UNION REGD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. GOPINATH DASH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. UNNI [REFERRED TO]
ANUJ GARG VS. HOTEL ASSOCIATION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SUCHITA SRIVASTAVA VS. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
HIRAL P. HARSORA AND ORS. VS. KUSUM NAROTTAMDAS HARSORA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (READ.) VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA THR SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. NATIONAL SOUTH INDIAN RIVER INTERLINKING AGRICULTURIST ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
DEEPIKA SINGH VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL [REFERRED TO]
X VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
K. UMADEVI VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are tempted to preface our judgment with the words of poet Fleur Conkling Heyliger. The stanza captioned above resonates with an undiminishing force in the present petition as well. It communicates that transition into motherhood does not occur in the brief moment when legal formalities are completed, rather it is a gradual process that takes shape in the heart of the mother. It is within these unspoken moments of reassurance and bonding that the relationship between a mother and child is gradually formed and strengthened.

(2.) Before we address ourselves on the issues raised in the writ petition, we find it apposite to note that the petitioner filed the I.A. No. 33856/2026 to amend the writ petition to bring on record the amendment and consolidation of the impugned provision by way of the Code on Social Security, 2020. We allow the I.A. for the amendment of the writ petition. The amended writ petition is considered for the purposes of the following exposition.

(3.) The petitioner, who is an adoptive mother of two children, has filed the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in public interest, seeking a declaration to the effect that Sec. 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (for short, "MB Act") as amended by the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 (for short, "Amendment Act, 2017") is unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, respectively. The prayer in the petition reads thus:-

Click here to view full judgment.

HAMSAANANDINI NANDURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address