The Supreme Court has overturned a Madras High Court ruling that denied maternity leave to a government school teacher for the birth of her third child. The earlier decision had cited a State policy that limited maternity benefits to women with only two children. However, the Supreme Court clarified that maternity benefits form an essential part of a woman’s reproductive rights, and cannot be restricted based on such norms.
Read also: Supreme Court Declares Maharashtra’s Zudpi Jungles as Protected Forests, Mandates Strict
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held:
“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.”
The top court emphasized that reproductive rights fall under multiple branches of international human rights law, including the right to health, right to privacy, equality, non-discrimination, and dignity.
The Court specifically rejected the view that maternity leave is merely a statutory benefit under service conditions. Instead, it held that such leave is a fundamental component of reproductive rights. The ruling also stressed the need to strike a balance between population control policies and women’s rights.
Read also: Supreme Court Criticizes Indian Navy Over Denial of Permanent Commission to Woman JAG Officer
“Policy of the State to arrest population growth is a laudable objective... However, this must be harmonized with the objective of granting maternity benefits to women employees,” said the judgment authored by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Background of the Case
The case involved a woman government servant who had two children from her first marriage, both of whom were living with their father after divorce. She remarried in 2018 and later gave birth to a child—her first after joining government service—and applied for maternity leave. The request was denied on the grounds that it was her third child, violating the State’s two-child policy for availing maternity benefits.
Initially, a single judge of the Madras High Court ruled in her favor. Justice V. Parthiban stated that Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 does not restrict the number of children a woman can claim maternity leave for. Instead, the Act only differentiates the duration of leave based on whether the woman has less than two surviving children or not.
Read also: "In Personal Liberty Cases, High Courts Must Act Swiftly": Supreme Court Grants Bail After 27
“The term ‘surviving children’ must be interpreted to mean the children under the custody of the mother,” the single judge held.
He also noted that the woman had not availed any maternity leave for her first two children as they were born before she joined government service.
Further, he ruled that even if the State’s service rules impose a two-child limit, they are repugnant to the Maternity Benefit Act and are void under Article 254 of the Constitution.
The State appealed the decision, and the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the single judge's ruling. It concluded that the woman was not entitled to maternity leave for a third child under the existing State norms. The Bench argued that maternity leave was not a fundamental right but a right derived from service rules.
They also stated that the Maternity Benefit Act did not apply to government servants who are covered by separate service rules, relying on the Uttarakhand High Court ruling in State of Uttarakhand v. Smt. Urmila Manish and Ors.
The Supreme Court, however, strongly rejected this interpretation. It emphasized that reproductive rights cannot be subject to narrow interpretations or restricted by local policies that conflict with central legislation.
“Maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits,” the Court reiterated, firmly stating that such rights are rooted in dignity and equality.
The Supreme Court thus set aside the Division Bench’s judgment, reaffirming the woman’s right to maternity leave despite the two-child policy, and underlined that Central laws like the Maternity Benefit Act have overriding authority under Section 27.
Case no. – CA No. 2526/2025 Diary No. 32351 / 2022
Case Title – K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu
