Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Maternity Leave Denial for Third Child from Second Marriage Violates Reproductive Rights: Supreme Court

24 May 2025 2:33 PM

By: Admin


“Right to maternity leave is part of a woman’s reproductive autonomy and protected under Article 21” – Supreme Court of India reversing a judgment of the Madras High Court which had denied maternity leave to a government school teacher for the birth of her first child from a second marriage. The Court held that the denial of maternity leave on the ground that the child was her third—though first from her second marriage—violated the appellant’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court emphasized that reproductive rights, including maternity leave, are an inseparable facet of personal liberty and dignity under Article 21. The ruling restores and reaffirms maternity benefits for women employees in similar situations and directs the State to harmonize population control norms with reproductive entitlements.

K. Umadevi, an English teacher in a government school in Tamil Nadu, was previously married and had two children from her first marriage, which ended in divorce in 2017. She entered government service in 2012 and remarried in 2018. In 2021, she applied for maternity leave for her pregnancy from her second marriage. The request was rejected by the State citing Fundamental Rule (FR) 101(a), which restricts maternity leave to women with fewer than two surviving children.

Challenging the rejection, Umadevi filed a writ petition which was allowed by a Single Judge of the Madras High Court, holding the denial illegal and directing the State to grant maternity leave under Government Order No. 84 dated August 23, 2021. The State, however, succeeded in an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench, which overturned the Single Judge’s order. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The key legal questions were whether maternity leave could be denied on the basis of the number of children from a previous marriage and whether such denial infringes on fundamental rights.

The Court ruled that “the right to have maternity leave is a facet of reproductive right of a woman which is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” It noted that even though Umadevi had two children from a previous marriage, the child in question was her first from the current marriage and was born after she entered service.

Referring to its earlier decision in Deepika Singh vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, (2023) 13 SCC 681, the Court clarified that the existence of children from a spouse’s prior marriage does not bar a woman from maternity leave for her first biological child from the current marriage. The bench observed:

“The fact that the appellant’s spouse had two biological children from his first marriage would not impinge upon the entitlement of the appellant to avail maternity leave for her sole biological child.”

The Court also underscored the wider scope of Article 21, stating: “Right to life includes all that which makes life meaningful. Reproductive rights are a part of human dignity and autonomy.”

Further, the Court held that Tamil Nadu’s Fundamental Rule 101(a), which imposes a cap based on the number of surviving children, cannot override constitutional guarantees or the principles enshrined in international conventions ratified by India, such as CEDAW and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench dated September 14, 2022, and upheld the appellant’s entitlement to maternity leave. The Court directed the State of Tamil Nadu to grant maternity leave to K. Umadevi under FR 101(a) and release all maternity benefits to her within two months.

In rejecting the narrow interpretation taken by the Division Bench, the Court made it clear that:

“In the context of employment, childbirth has to be construed as a natural incident of life, and provisions for maternity leave must be interpreted in that light.”

This judgment marks a significant affirmation of the reproductive and constitutional rights of women in public employment. By declaring maternity leave as an essential part of the right to life and dignity under Article 21, the Supreme Court has harmonized social justice, gender equity, and administrative pragmatism in a single stroke.

Date of Decision: May 23, 2025

Latest Legal News