Facts of the case

The Appellant had 2 children from the first wedlock, one was born in the year 2007 and the other was born in the year 2011. In December 2012, she started working as an English teacher at Government Higher Secondary School, P. Gollapatti, Dharmapuri District in the State of Tamil Nadu. Later, in the year 2017, her marriage with her first husband ended in divorce. It was mentioned that the custody of both the children stayed with her ex-husband.

In the year 2018, the Appellant got married again. When She became pregnant from her second marriage, she applied for maternity leave from 17/8/2021 to 13/05/2022 a total of 9 months, covering both pre-and-post-natal periods. However, her request was denied by the authorities on 28/08/2021. The reason given was that, according to Rule 101 (a) of the Fundamental Rules (FR) for Tamil Nadu government employees, maternity leave can only be granted if the woman has fewer than two surviving children. Since the Appellant already had two children from her first marriage, and there is no rule allowing maternity leave for a third child after remarriage, her request was rejected.

After her maternity leave request was rejected, the Appellant filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court. A Single Judge of the High Court ruled in her favour, saying she had the right to maternity leave and cancelled the earlier rejection order of the authorities. However, the Tamil Nadu Government challenged this decision by filing an appeal before Division Bench. The Division Bench of the High Court ruled the earlier ruling.

The Division Bench stated that, as per the State’s policy, maternity leave is only allowed for up to two children. Since this would be the Appellant’s third child, she was not eligible. The Court also said that maternity leave is not a fundamental right, it is a legal right that comes from specific laws or service rules. The Division Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Deepika Singh Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal to support the State’s position.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court, seeking justice and hoping for relief that has been denied to her.

Contentions of the Appellant

The Appellant’s Advocate argued that the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in denying her maternity benefits. He explained that before joining government service, the Appellant had two children from her first marriage both of whom are in the custody of their father(ex-husband). The child from her second marriage is her first child in this new relationship and should not be counted as a third child overall.

The Advocate argued that the right to maternity leave is a part of woman’s reproductive rights, which are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Even though the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 may not directly apply to state government employees, it’s principles can still guide the Court in interpreting rules in a way that supports the purpose of the law, the Appellant’s Advocate argued.

Contention of the Respondent

On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent argued that maternity leave rules are closely tied to financial planning and human resources management.  Allowing exceptions to the policy which limits maternity leave to only two surviving children or with two surviving children born as twins in the first delivery could set as a precedent that might put a heavy burden on public funds and effect the smooth functioning of government offices.

The counsel also submitted that granting the Appellant’s request could be seen as encouraging people to ignore population control norms and could weaken the government’s effort to promote small families as a way to manage population growth.

Additionally, it was argued that the Maternity Benefit Act does not apply to the state government employees like the Appellant. It was also pointed out that Tamil Nadu already provides generous maternity benefits to it’s employees through state welfare schemes which infact are even better than those under the Maternity Benefit Act.

Court’s Observation

While reviewing the Order that denied maternity leave to the Appellant and the Division Bench’s ruling, the Supreme Court stated that the issue must be looked at in light of the Constitution, existing laws and international developments related to maternity rights.

Recognizing the significance of the Article 21 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court said “By judicial interpretation, it has been held that life under Article 21 means life in its fullest sense; all that which makes life more meaningful, worth living like a human being. Right to life includes all the finer graces of human civilization, thus rendering this fundamental right a repository of various human rights. Right to life also includes the right to health. Right to live with human dignity and the right to privacy are now acknowledged facets of Article 21.”

“Article 42 of the Constitution of India which is one of the directive principles of State policy mandates that the State shall make provisions for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief”

“Article 51of the Constitution states that through Article 51(c) that the State shall endeavour to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized people with one another”

The Supreme Court looked into FR 101(a), which applied to the Tamil Nadu government employees. It noted that under this rule, maternity leave is allowed for married women government employees who have fewer than two surviving children and if a woman has twins in her first delivery, she can be granted maternity leave for one more childbirth.

Although the Maternity benefit Act does not directly apply to the state government employees, the Court still referred to section 5 of the Act to understand the broader intention behind maternity benefits. It observed that the Act does not completely deny maternity leave to women with more than two children. After a 2017 amendment, the law was changes to limit the duration of leave, not the right to it. So, there is no rule that stops a woman from claiming maternity leave just because she has more than two children.

Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act states that it’s provisions will override any conflicting laws, agreements or service contracts, whether made before or after the Act came into effect.

The Court noted that international treaties like the UDHR, ICESCR, CEDAW and the Ilo’s Maternity Protection Convention recognize the reproductive rights, including maternity benefits. It emphasized that maternity leave is a key part of these rights, which are linked to health, privacy, equality, non-discrimination and dignity.

In the Deepika Singh case, the Appellant was denied maternity leave because the authorities counted her husband’s two children from his previous marriage, treating her first biological child as a third child. The Apex Court disagreed with this view and clarified that Rule 43 of the Central Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 should be interpreted with a purpose driven and liberal approach, as it is beneficial law meant to support working women.

The Court made it clear that a woman should not be denied maternity leave for her own biological child just because her spouse has children from an earlier marriage. It also stated that the childcare leave granted to for those stepchildren cannot be used as a reason to deny her maternity leave. The Court emphasized that childbirth is a natural part of life, and in the context of employment, laws around maternity leave must be understood in the humane and supportive light

Court’s Decision

Based on its findings, the Supreme Court found it appropriate to overturn the Madras High Court Division Bench’s decision and rules that the Appellant is entitled to maternity leave under FR 101 (a). It directed that all applicable maternity benefits be granted to her within two months.

Credits: Adv. Siddhi Sawant