The Supreme Court of India has set aside a Madras High Court Division Bench order that denied maternity leave to a government teacher for the birth of her third child, citing a state policy restricting maternity benefits to two children. The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, establishes maternity leave as an integral component of reproductive rights, which are now recognised as part of international human rights law, including the rights to health, privacy, equality, non-discrimination, and dignity.
The Court’s judgment, authored by Justice Bhuyan, declared, “We have delved into the concept of reproductive rights and have held that maternity benefits are a part of reproductive rights, and maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits.
Therefore, the impugned order has been set aside.” The ruling overturns the Division Bench’s stance that maternity leave is merely a statutory right or a benefit tied to service conditions, not a fundamental right.
Case Background
The case originated when a government teacher, whose identity remains undisclosed, approached the Madras High Court after the Tamil Nadu State government rejected her request for maternity leave following the birth of her third child. The petitioner, who joined government service after her divorce from her first marriage, had two children from that wedlock, both of whom are in the custody of their father. After remarrying in 2018, she gave birth to her third child, the first born during her tenure as a government servant, and sought maternity leave to care for the child, who is in her custody.
The petitioner’s initial plea was upheld by a single judge of the Madras High Court, Justice V. Parthiban, who ruled in her favour in 2021. Justice Parthiban relied on Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which he interpreted as not imposing a limit on the number of deliveries for which maternity benefits can be claimed. The Act distinguishes between women with fewer than two surviving children, who are entitled to 26 weeks of maternity leave, and those with two or more, who are eligible for 12 weeks.
The judge clarified that “surviving children” refers to children in the custody of the woman seeking benefits. Since the petitioner’s two children from her first marriage were not in her custody, and she had not availed maternity leave for their births (as they were born before her entry into service), Justice Parthiban ruled she was entitled to leave for her third child.
Additionally, the single judge noted that even if Tamil Nadu’s service rules imposed a two-child norm for maternity benefits, such rules would be void under Article 254 of the Constitution, as they conflict with the Maternity Benefit Act, which has overriding effect under Section 27. He directed the State to grant the petitioner one year of maternity leave, from October 11, 2021, to October 10, 2022.
State’s Appeal and Division Bench Ruling
The Tamil Nadu government challenged the single judge’s order before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, which overturned the decision. The Division Bench held that the petitioner was not entitled to maternity leave for her third child due to the State’s two-child norm policy, aimed at controlling population growth.
The bench further ruled that maternity leave is a statutory right or a benefit derived from service conditions, not a fundamental right. Citing a precedent from the Uttarakhand High Court in State of Uttarakhand v. Smt. Urmila Manish and Ors., the Division Bench argued that the Maternity Benefit Act does not apply to government servants governed by separate service rules. Consequently, the petitioner’s claim was dismissed, and the single judge’s order was quashed.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, rejected the Division Bench’s interpretation, emphasising the broader framework of reproductive rights under international human rights law. The Court noted that maternity benefits, including leave, are essential to ensuring a woman’s right to health, privacy, equality, non-discrimination, and dignity.
Justice Bhuyan’s judgment underscored that the petitioner’s two children from her first marriage, born before her entry into government service and not in her custody, should not bar her from claiming maternity benefits for her third child, the first born during her service and in her custody.
The Court also addressed the State’s two-child norm policy, acknowledging its objective of controlling population growth as “laudable.” However, it held that this policy should not undermine the equally important goal of providing maternity benefits to women employees.
“The object of having a two-child norm as part of measures to control population growth in the country and the object of providing maternity benefit to women employees, including maternity leave in circumstances such as in the present case, are not mutually exclusive,” the judgment stated. The Court urged a “purposive and rational” harmonization of these objectives to achieve social goals.
Implications of the Ruling
This decision marks a significant step in recognising maternity benefits as an extension of fundamental reproductive rights, challenging restrictive State policies that limit such benefits based on the number of children. By affirming that the Maternity Benefit Act overrides conflicting State service rules, the Supreme Court has reinforced the Act’s primacy in ensuring equitable treatment for women employees. The ruling also clarifies that the term “surviving children” in the Act pertains to children in the custody of the woman claiming benefits, providing a nuanced interpretation that considers familial circumstances.
The Tamil Nadu government has been directed to comply with the Supreme Court’s order and grant the petitioner maternity leave as per the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act.
