Supreme Court Upholds Reproductive Autonomy | Grants Maternity Leave For Third Child From Second Marriage | Right To Maternity Leave Is A Facet Of Article 21
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has stated that the appellant is entitled to maternity leave under Fundamental Rule (FR) 101(a), despite having two children from a previous marriage. The Court directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to grant the maternity benefits within two months. The directive came upon the Supreme Court setting aside the earlier judgment dated 14.09.2022 of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, which had reversed the decision of a learned Single Judge allowing maternity benefits. The apex court held that the denial of maternity leave on the ground that the appellant had two surviving children from an earlier marriage was incorrect, especially considering that the children were not in her custody and that the child in question was her first from the current marriage. The Supreme Court further declared that reproductive rights and maternity benefits are facets of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It also relied on international conventions and earlier judicial pronouncements to affirm the constitutional and reproductive entitlement of working women to maternity leave.
The appellant was initially married in 2006 and had two children from that wedlock in 2007 and 2011 respectively. The marriage ended in divorce in 2017, and custody of both children remained with her former husband. In December 2012, she entered government service as an English Teacher at a Government Higher Secondary School in Dharmapuri District, Tamil Nadu. In 2018, she married again and conceived a child with her second husband.
Pursuant to her pregnancy from the second marriage, she applied for maternity leave covering the period from 17.08.2021 to 13.05.2022, totalling nine months. However, her request was denied by the third respondent through an order dated 28.08.2021. The denial was based on FR 101(a), which restricts the availability of maternity leave to women government employees with fewer than two surviving children.
Aggrieved by the rejection, she filed W.P. No. 22075 of 2021 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. A learned Single Judge passed a judgment on 25.03.2022 allowing the petition, setting aside the 28.08.2021 order, and directing the state authorities to grant maternity leave in accordance with G.O.Ms. No. 84 dated 23.08.2021.
The State of Tamil Nadu challenged this judgement in Writ Appeal No. 1442 of 2022. The Division Bench reversed the learned Single Judge’s decision, stating that the appellant was not entitled to the relief as she already had two surviving children. The Division Bench observed that maternity leave is not a fundamental right but a statutory one or one arising from service conditions.
This led to the present civil appeal before the Supreme Court, arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20178 of 2022. Notice was issued on 28.11.2022 and leave was granted on 11.02.2025.
The appellant contended that her earlier children were not in her custody and that the pregnancy from her second marriage should be treated as her first biological child from the current wedlock. Her counsel relied heavily on the precedent laid in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2023) 13 SCC 681.
The respondents argued that maternity benefits are not unlimited and must align with fiscal policies, human resource management, and population control norms. They stated the cap on benefits under FR 101(a) and asserted that granting leave for a third child would be contrary to state policy.
The Supreme Court, after reviewing the rival submissions and statutory framework, observed “Grant of maternity benefit is per se not denied to a woman employee having more than two children.”
The Court noted that under Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, the period of benefit varies based on the number of children but does not outright deny maternity benefit for a third child. “There is no ceiling or cap on the number of children to claim maternity benefit. Only thing is that... the benefit is reduced.”
Referring to international conventions and Indian constitutional provisions, the Court stated “Right to have maternity leave is a facet of reproductive right of a woman which is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court explained the inclusive scope of Article 21 and Article 42, stating: “Right to life includes all the finer graces of human civilization... Right to life also includes the right to health.”
Quoting from Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1, the Court observed: “Reproductive rights include a woman's entitlement to carry a pregnancy to its full term, to give birth and to subsequently raise children.”
The Court also relied on Deepika Singh v. CAT, stating that the fact that a woman’s spouse had children from a previous marriage should not disqualify her from availing maternity leave. It stated from Deepika Singh: “The fact that the appellant’s spouse had two biological children from his first marriage would not impinge upon the entitlement of the appellant to avail maternity leave for her sole biological child.”
Addressing the Division Bench’s interpretation of FR 101(a), the Supreme Court held that a restrictive reading was unwarranted. It stated: “Provisions for maternity leave must be construed in that perspective... the courts must bridge the gap between law and society through the use of purposive interpretation.”
Further, the Court recorded: “Appellant has two biological children out of her first wedlock... Post entry into service and from her subsisting marriage, this is her first child.”
Regarding the state’s argument on population control, the Court stated: “Policy of the State to arrest population growth... and the object of providing maternity benefit... are not mutually exclusive. The two must be harmonized.”
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated 14.09.2022. It directed as follows:
“Appellant shall be granted maternity leave under FR 101(a).”
The Court further ordered: “Maternity benefits which are admissible to the appellant shall be released to her within a period of two months from today.”
The Court concluded the judgment by stating: “Appeal is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. V. Muthu Kumar, AOR, Ms. Sarita Kanwar, Adv.
For the Respondents: Dr. Joseph Aristotle S, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
Case Title: K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 781
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2526 of 2025
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
[Read/Download order]
