Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Rajasthan High Court Affirms Maternity Leave Rights for Surrogate Mothers

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Rajasthan High Court has set a precedent by recognizing the maternity leave rights of surrogate mothers. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, in the case [2023:RJ-JP:33972], ruled in favor of Smt. Chanda Keswani, who challenged the denial of maternity leave for her twins born through surrogacy.

“Motherhood is the mother of all civilizations,” the court observed, underscoring the significance of the maternal bond irrespective of the method of childbirth. This statement not only acknowledges the traditional role of mothers but also embraces the modern dynamics of motherhood in the context of reproductive technologies.

The court delved into the question of whether state governments can differentiate between natural, biological, and surrogate mothers regarding maternity leave. The petitioner, after being refused maternity leave by the state authorities, sought redress under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court’s order to grant her 180 days of maternity leave marks a significant step in the recognition of surrogate mothers’ rights.

Justice Dhand, in his ruling, emphasized that “the right to life includes the right to motherhood and also the right of every child to full development,” echoing the constitutional mandate of Article 21. The judgment reflects a broader understanding of maternity, beyond the biological act of childbirth, to include the nurturing and care of a child.

The court also highlighted that the current legal framework under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, does not adequately address the rights of surrogate mothers. This gap in the legislation, the court noted, needs to be filled to ensure that all forms of motherhood are respected and protected.

Rajasthan High Court’s decision sets a precedent for other courts and legislatures, advocating for changes in the law to accommodate the evolving nature of family and parenthood in modern society. This ruling not only grants relief to the petitioner but also paves the way for a more inclusive understanding of maternity and parental rights in India.

Date of Decision: 08/11/2023

Smt. Chanda Keswani VS State of Rajasthan

Latest Legal News