Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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

Similar News