Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Madras High Court Division Bench judgment dated 14.09.2022 which had denied maternity leave to a woman employee on the ground that she had two surviving children from a previous marriage. The Court held:
“Appellant shall be granted maternity leave under FR 101(a)… Maternity benefits which are admissible to the appellant shall be released to her within a period of two months from today.”
The Court clarified that the restriction under FR 101(a) limiting maternity leave to women with less than two surviving children must be interpreted purposefully and harmoniously with reproductive rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. It concluded that the child born from the appellant’s second marriage was her first child from the subsisting wedlock and thus eligible for maternity benefits.
Facts
- The appellant joined government service as an English teacher in Tamil Nadu in 2012.
- She had two children from her first marriage (2006–2017); the custody of both children is with the father.
- In 2018, she remarried and later conceived a child from her second marriage.
- She applied for maternity leave from 17.08.2021 to 13.05.2022.
- The request was rejected on 28.08.2021 on the ground that under FR 101(a), maternity leave is restricted to women with less than two surviving children.
- A Single Judge of the High Court allowed her writ petition, holding that denial of maternity leave was unjustified.
- The Division Bench reversed this and held that the appellant was ineligible for maternity leave for her third child.
Issues
- Whether the appellant was eligible for maternity leave under FR 101(a) despite having two children from a previous marriage?
- Whether denial of maternity leave infringes upon reproductive rights under Article 21 of the Constitution?
- What is the impact of international conventions and constitutional directives on interpreting maternity benefits?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The Division Bench erred in reversing the Single Judge’s order.
- The child from the second marriage is her first biological child in the subsisting wedlock.
- The decision in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, (2023) 13 SCC 681, squarely applies, where this Court had allowed maternity leave in a similar context.
- Maternity leave is a facet of reproductive rights traceable to Article 21.
- Though the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 does not apply directly, its principles must guide interpretation in favour of granting leave.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Maternity leave is a statutory right and subject to fiscal and policy limitations.
- FR 101(a) clearly bars leave for women with two surviving children, regardless of marital history.
- Allowing maternity leave in such cases would contravene the State’s population control policy.
- Granting relief would incentivize deviation from the two-child norm and adversely affect administrative resources.
Analysis of the Law
- FR 101(a) permits maternity leave only if the woman has less than two surviving children. A second proviso extends benefits where twins are born in the first delivery.
- The Maternity Benefit Act, while not directly applicable, allows maternity leave even to women with two or more children, albeit for a reduced duration (12 weeks).
- Section 27 of the Act provides that its provisions override inconsistent laws or service rules.
Precedent Analysis
- In Deepika Singh v. CAT, the Court held that the appellant’s first biological child from her own marriage was not disentitled to maternity leave even if her spouse had two children from a previous marriage. It emphasised purposive and beneficial interpretation.
- Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1 — Recognised reproductive autonomy as a dimension of Article 21.
- Devika Biswas v. Union of India (2016) 10 SCC 726 — Affirmed that reproductive rights include the right to make informed decisions regarding sterilization and pregnancy.
- X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Dept., (2023) 9 SCC 433 — Expanded the scope of reproductive rights to include access to healthcare, autonomy, and informed decision-making.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Court acknowledged that while population control is a legitimate aim, it must be harmonized with the right of a woman to reproductive autonomy.
- The appellant’s two children from the earlier marriage were born before she joined government service and are not in her custody.
- The present conception was her first from the subsisting marriage and after entering service, entitling her to maternity leave under FR 101(a).
- Maternity leave policies must be interpreted in light of constitutional values, international conventions (CEDAW, Universal Declaration of Human Rights), and judicial precedents.
“Reproductive rights are now recognized as part of several intersecting domains of international human rights law… Right to life includes the right to health and reproductive autonomy.”
- The denial of leave violates Article 21’s guarantee of dignity, health, and privacy.
- The Division Bench’s interpretation was found to be narrow and inconsistent with evolving constitutional jurisprudence.
Conclusion
- The judgment of the Madras High Court Division Bench dated 14.09.2022 was set aside.
- The appellant was declared eligible for maternity leave under FR 101(a).
- The Supreme Court directed that maternity benefits be released to the appellant within two months from the date of judgment (23.05.2025).
Implications
- The judgment reaffirms that statutory maternity leave rules must be interpreted purposively to accommodate the reproductive rights of women employees.
- Reinforces that children from prior marriages and lack of current custody cannot bar maternity leave in subsequent marriages.
- Reiterates the binding force of Deepika Singh and sets a constitutional benchmark aligning with international human rights norms.
- Has wide implications for policies based on the two-child norm, requiring them to be balanced with individual rights under Article 21.
