23 May 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court of India, on May 23, 2025, in the case of K. Umadevi v/s Government of Tamil Nadu & Others (Civil Appeal No. 2526 of 2025), delivered a significant judgment affirming the right to maternity leave as an integral aspect of a woman's reproductive rights and dignity. The ruling, presided over by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, overturned a Madras High Court Division Bench decision and directed the State of Tamil Nadu to grant maternity leave to the appellant, K. Umadevi.

Background of the Case:

K. Umadevi, an English Teacher in a Government Higher Secondary School in Tamil Nadu, married A. Suresh in 2006 and had two children in 2007 and 2011. After their divorce in 2017, the children remained in the custody of her former husband. In 2018, Umadevi remarried M. Rajkumar and subsequently applied for maternity leave from August 17, 2021, to May 13, 2022, due to her conception from the second marriage.

Her application was rejected by the third respondent on August 28, 2021, citing Fundamental Rule (FR) 101(a) of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules, which states that maternity leave is available to women government employees with fewer than two surviving children. The rejection explicitly stated there was no provision for maternity leave for a third child on account of remarriage.

Judicial Journey:

Umadevi challenged the rejection in the Madras High Court. A single judge, on March 25, 2022, ruled in her favor, stating that she was entitled to maternity benefits and that the rejection was illegal. The single judge set aside the August 28, 2021 order and directed the respondents to sanction maternity leave as per G.O.Ms. No. 84 dated August 23, 2021, which enhanced maternity leave from 9 to 12 months.

However, a Division Bench of the High Court, in an intra-court appeal (W.A. No. 1442 of 2022), reversed the single judge's decision on September 14, 2022. The Division Bench held that the state's policy restricts maternity leave benefit to two children, and therefore, Umadevi was not entitled to it for a third child. It also stated that the grant of maternity leave is not a fundamental right but a statutory right or one flowing from service conditions. The Division Bench further misinterpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal [(2023) 13 SCC 681], claiming it supported the state's position.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision:

The Supreme Court, after hearing the appeal, meticulously examined the constitutional framework, statutory provisions, and international developments related to maternity benefits.

• Constitutional Perspective: The Court emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing protection of life and personal liberty, has been broadly interpreted to include the right to health and reproductive rights. It also highlighted Article 42, a directive principle, which mandates the State to make provisions for just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief. Furthermore, Article 51(c) encourages fostering respect for international law and treaty obligations.

• Maternity Benefit Act, 1961: While acknowledging that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, does not directly apply to state government employees, the Court used its provisions for guidance. The Court noted that Section 5 of the Act, after a 2017 amendment, does not deny maternity benefits to women with more than two children; it only restricts the period of benefit (12 weeks for those with two or more surviving children, compared to 26 weeks for those with less than two). The Court also referenced Section 27, which gives the Maternity Benefit Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws.

• International Instruments: The judgment referred to various international conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 25(2) recognizing special care for motherhood and childhood), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 10(2) on special protection for mothers before and after childbirth), and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (Article 11(2) on eliminating discrimination due to marriage or maternity and Article 16(1)(e) on the right to decide on the number and spacing of children). The Court emphasized that these international developments have influenced Indian law, and reproductive rights are now recognized as part of several intersecting domains of international human rights law, including the right to health, privacy, equality, non-discrimination, and dignity.

• Precedents and Purposive Construction: The Supreme Court heavily relied on its own judgment in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal. In Deepika Singh, the Court had held that a woman's entitlement to maternity leave for her biological child would not be affected by her spouse having children from a previous marriage, even if she had availed child care leave for them. The Court in the present case applied this principle, stating that the fact Umadevi had two biological children from her first marriage, whose custody was with her ex-husband, did not disentitle her to maternity leave for her first child from her subsisting marriage. The Court stressed the importance of purposive construction for beneficial legislation like maternity leave provisions, aiming to bridge the gap between law and society.

The Court found the Division Bench's view unsustainable and declared that the appellant should be granted maternity leave under FR 101(a). It directed the release of admissible maternity benefits to Umadevi within two months. The Supreme Court underscored that while population control is a laudable objective, it should be harmonized with the equally important objective of providing maternity benefits to women employees in a purposive and rational manner.

This judgment reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to protecting the rights of women and ensuring that policies are interpreted in a manner that promotes social justice and aligns with constitutional mandates and international human rights standards.