Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC

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