K. UMADEVIversusGOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

                 [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2704 : 2025 INSC 781

                           K. Umadevi
                                v.
                  Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 2526 of 2025)
                                  23 May 2025
                [Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       The Division Bench of the High Court held that appellant was not
       entitled to the benefit of maternity leave.

                                   Headnotes†
       Constitution of India – Art.21 – Maternity Leave – Appellant
       is stated to have two children from the first wedlock – First
       marriage was dissolved – Then appellant married MR – Due to
       conceivement from her second marriage, appellant applied for
       grant of maternity leave to the authorities for the period from
       17.08.2021 to 13.05.2022 – The third respondent vide order
       dated 28.08.2021 rejected the prayer of the appellant that as
       per Fundamental Rule (FR) 101(a) maternity leave is available
       to women state government employees having less than two
       surviving children – Writ petition – Single Judge of the High
       Court vide the judgment and order dated 25.03.2022 held that
       appellant was entitled to grant of maternity benefit – However,
       the Division Bench of the High Court found the judgment of
       the Single Judge to be unsustainable – Correctness:
       Held: In the instant case, appellant has two biological children out
       of her first wedlock – But that was before entry into her service –
       Post entry into service and from her subsisting marriage, this is
       her first child – It has come on record that the two children out of
       her first wedlock are not residing with her but with their father, who
       is having their custody – Policy of the State to arrest population
       growth by resorting to various population control measures is
       certainly a laudable objective – So is the objective of granting
       maternity benefit to women employees – The object of having two
       child norm as part of the measures to control population growth in



* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                              2705

            K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.


     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 two must
     be harmonized in a purposive and rationale manner to achieve
     the social objective – Accordingly, the judgment and order of the
     Division Bench of the High Court dated 14.09.2022 is set aside
     and it is declared that appellant shall be granted maternity leave
     under FR 101(a). [Paras 34, 35, 37]

     Maternity Leave – Universal Declaration of Human Rights –
     International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
     Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) – Maternity Protection
     Convention:
     Held: Maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits – Reproductive
     rights are now recognized as part of several intersecting domains
     of international human rights law viz. the right to health, right to
     privacy, right to equality and non-discrimination and the right to
     dignity. [Para 28]

     Constitution of India – Art.21 – Judicial Interpretation:
     Held: 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. [Para 13.1]
     Constitution of India – Arts. 21, 42, 51(c) – Maternity leave –
     Maternity benefit – Reproductive rights – Discussed.
     Maternity leave – International developments had its impact
     on Indian law – Discussed. [Paras 29-33.4]

                              Case Law Cited
     Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal [2022] 7 SCR
     557 : (2023) 13 SCC 681; B. Shah v. Presiding Officer, Labour
     Court, Coimbatore [1978] 1 SCR 701 : AIR 1978 SC 12; Suchita
     Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration [2009] 13 SCR 989 : (2009)
     9 SCC 1; Devika Biswas v. Union of India [2016] 5 SCR 773 :
2706                                                        [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     (2016) 10 SCC 726; X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family
     Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi [2022] 7 SCR 686 :
     (2023) 9 SCC 433 – referred to.
     Commissioner of Police v. Raveena Yadav, MANU/DE/4823/2024 –
     referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Constitution of India; Maternity Benefit Act, 1961; Universal
     Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

                             List of Keywords
     Maternity leave; Maternity benefit; Reproductive rights; Right to
     health; Right to privacy; Right to equality and non-discrimination;
     Right to dignity; Article 21 of Constitution of India.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2526 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2022 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Madras in WA No. 1442 of 2022

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     K. V. Muthu Kumar, Ms. Sarita Kanwar.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Joseph Aristotle, Sr. Adv., Sabarish Subramanian.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

     This civil appeal by special leave takes exception to the judgment
     and order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the
     High Court of Judicature at Madras (High Court) in W.A. No. 1442
     of 2022.
2.   By the aforesaid judgment and order dated 14.09.2022 (impugned
     judgment), Division Bench set aside the judgment and order dated
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                      2707

            K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.


     25.03.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in
     W.P. No. 22075 of 2021 (K. Umadevi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
     and Others) whereby direction was issued to the State to sanction
     maternity leave to the appellant. By reversing the aforesaid decision,
     Division Bench held that appellant was not entitled to the benefit of
     maternity leave as claimed by her.
3.   Relevant facts may be briefly noted.
4.   Appellant married A. Suresh in the year 2006. From the said
     wedlock, two children were born: first one in 2007 and the second
     one in 2011. She entered government service in December, 2012
     as English Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, P.
     Gollapatti, Dharmapuri District in the State of Tamil Nadu. Marriage
     between the two was dissolved in the year 2017. It is stated that
     the two children born out of the said wedlock are in the custody of
     the former husband.
     4.1. On 12.09.2018, appellant married M. Rajkumar. Due to
          conceivement from her second marriage, appellant applied for
          grant of maternity leave to the authorities for the period from
          17.08.2021 to 13.05.2022 (nine months) which was inclusive
          of both pre-and-post-natal periods.
     4.2. The third respondent vide order dated 28.08.2021 rejected the
          prayer of the appellant. It was stated that as per Fundamental
          Rule (FR) 101(a) which is applicable to state government
          employees of Tamil Nadu, maternity leave is available to women
          state government employees having less than two surviving
          children. There is no provision for grant of maternity leave for
          the third child on account of appellant’s re-marriage.
     4.3. Aggrieved by rejection of her request for grant of maternity
          leave, appellant preferred a writ petition before the High Court
          which was registered as W.P. No. 22075 of 2021. A learned
          Single Judge of the High Court vide the judgment and order
          dated 25.03.2022 held that appellant was entitled to grant of
          maternity benefit. Therefore, rejection of her claim for grant of
          such benefit was illegal. As such, order dated 28.08.2021 was
          set aside. Respondents were directed to sanction maternity
          leave to the appellant as admissible in terms of the latest
          G.O.Ms. No. 84 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms
2708                                                         [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


             (FR-III) Department dated 23.08.2021. Consequential decision
             was directed to be taken within a period of two weeks from the
             date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment. Writ petition was
             accordingly allowed.
      4.4. Government of Tamil Nadu and its officers filed intra-court
           appeal being W.A. No. 1442 of 2022. A Division Bench of
           the High Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated
           14.09.2022 found the judgment of the learned Single Judge to
           be unsustainable. Division Bench held that the appellant was
           not entitled to maternity relief as claimed by her. Accordingly,
           the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated
           25.03.2022 has been set aside. Consequently, the writ appeal
           has been allowed.
5.    This came to be assailed before this Court in the related special
      leave petition. Notice was issued by this Court on 28.11.2022. In
      the hearing held on 11.02.2025, leave was granted.
6.    Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Division Bench
      was not at all justified in reversing the decision of the learned Single
      Judge. Division Bench erred in holding that maternity benefit could
      not be provided to the appellant. Prior to her entry into service, she
      had begotten two children from her first marriage but their custody
      is with the father. Conceivement of a child out of her re-marriage
      which, in fact, is her first child from the present wedlock cannot be
      treated as her third child, thus, disentitling her from availing the
      benefit of maternity leave.
      6.1. Learned counsel submits that the issue raised in this case
           is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Deepika
           Singh Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal1. However, the Division
           Bench misdirected itself in observing that the said decision is
           not applicable to the facts of this case; rather supports the
           case of the respondents. He submits that the decision of this
           Court in Deepika Singh (supra) is squarely applicable to the
           facts of this case. Division Bench of the High Court is bound by
           the dictum of law laid down in Deepika Singh (supra). To that
           extent, impugned judgment and order suffers from perversity.


1    (2023) 13 SCC 681
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                       2709

            K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.


     6.2. Learned counsel further submits that view of the Division
          Bench that grant of maternity leave is not a fundamental right
          is totally unsustainable. 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, he submits.
     6.3. He further submits that though the Maternity Benefit Act,
          1961 may not be directly applicable to the state government
          employees, nonetheless for the purpose of adopting an approach
          which would further the legislative intent, certainly guidance
          can be derived from the provisions of the Maternity Benefit
          Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as the ‘Maternity Benefit Act’).
     6.4. In any view of the matter, he submits that view taken by the
          Division Bench cannot be sustained. Learned Single Judge was
          justified in holding that appellant is entitled to maternity leave.
          Therefore, the impugned judgment should be set aside and
          direction be issued to the respondents to grant maternity leave
          to the appellant or regularize any leave taken by the appellant
          relatable to her pregnancy as maternity leave of the appellant.
7.   Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the entire
     object of maternity benefit is to protect the dignity of motherhood by
     providing complete care to a woman employee and her children when
     she is unable to perform her duty on account of her pregnancy. By
     extending such benefit, the State has made an attempt to provide
     the women employees with a level playing field.
     7.1. He, however, submits that the said policy is subject to fiscal
          responsibility and human resources management. Any deviation
          from the established policy of not extending the benefit of
          maternity leave to women employees having more than
          two children would create precedents that could potentially
          overwhelm the exchequer and impact administrative efficacy.
          Even in Deepika Singh (supra), this Court highlighted that
          statutory rights and service conditions must align. Therefore,
          personal circumstances cannot override established policy,
          especially where fiscal implications are significant.
     7.2. He also submits that it is the policy of the State to espouse
          the cause of small family which is in sync with the policy of
          Government of India on population control. If the reliefs sought
          for by the appellant is granted, it would amount to incentivizing
2710                                                         [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          breach of population control norms and may have severe and
          adverse impact on government’s policy of managing small family
          norms as a population control measure.
     7.3. Learned counsel has referred to FR 101(a) and submits that
          the same bars grant of maternity benefit beyond the second
          child. Permanent married women government servants and non-
          permanent married women government servants may be granted
          maternity leave with less than two surviving children or with two
          surviving children born as twins in the first delivery. Insofar the
          present case is concerned, appellant already has two children
          from her first marriage. Therefore, she is not entitled to maternity
          benefit for the third child. That apart, provisions of the Maternity
          Benefit Act are not applicable to state government employees
          like the appellant. However, benefits extended to government
          employees of Tamil Nadu as social welfare measures are more
          beneficial than under the Maternity Benefit Act.
     7.4. Learned counsel submits that appeal of the appellant is without
          any merit and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
8.   We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel
     representing the parties.
9.   Let us first deal with the order dated 28.08.2021 passed by the third
     respondent under the heading: Proceeding of Dharmapuri District
     Chief Educational Officer. By the aforesaid order, request of the
     appellant for maternity leave was rejected on the ground that there
     is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules for grant of
     maternity leave for third child through re-marriage. Order dated
     28.08.2021 reads thus:
          On the above subject matter, the letter in the reference
          cited was received on 18.08.2021 in this office. Smt. K.
          Umadevi had two children by her first marriage. After getting
          divorced for personal reason, she remarried and through
          remarriage she has now applied for maternity leave for
          the third child from 17.08.2021.
          Since as per Rule 101 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental
          Rules, maternity leave can be granted to a woman
          government servant with less than two living children only,
          the request of the individual to sanction maternity leave
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                          2711

            K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.


           to her third child may be rejected by informing that there
           is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Fundamental rules for
           grant of maternity leave for third child through remarriage.
10. When this was challenged before the High Court, learned Single
    Judge referred to various case laws and also relied upon the Maternity
    Benefit Act and held that provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act have
    overriding effect on any other law inconsistent therewith. It was held
    that the rule providing cap on the number of children for entitlement
    of maternity benefit is repugnant to the Maternity Benefit Act which
    is a central enactment. Further, two surviving children must mean
    children in lawful custody of the mother. Appellant was not having
    the custody of children born from the first wedlock. A semantic
    construct of the expression ‘having surviving children’ must mean that
    the woman government employee seeking maternity benefit should
    have custody of the children. The thrust should be on grant of the
    benefit by adopting a liberal interpretation. Learned Single Judge also
    noted that the State Government had issued G.O.Ms. No. 84 dated
    23.08.2021 enhancing maternity leave from 9 months to 12 months
    underlying the importance of maternity leave. Therefore, learned
    Single Judge concluded that rejection of the claim of the appellant
    for maternity leave was wholly unjustified. Vide the judgment and
    order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.03.2022, order dated
    28.08.2021 was set aside. Respondents were directed to sanction
    maternity leave to the appellant for the period from 11.10.2021 to
    10.10.2022 as admissible in terms of the latest G.O.Ms. No. 84
    dated 23.08.2021.
11. When the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Single Judge
    was assailed in intra-court appeal, Division Bench noted that insofar
    policy of the State is concerned it restricts benefit of maternity leave
    to two children. Therefore, appellant was not entitled to benefit of
    maternity leave for the third child. Grant of maternity leave is not a
    fundamental right. It is either a statutory right or a right which flows
    from the conditions of service. Insofar the decision of this Court in
    Deepika Singh (supra) is concerned, Division Bench observed that the
    said decision supports the case of the State, particularly paragraph
    17 thereof. In the circumstances, Division Bench vide the impugned
    judgment held that appellant was not entitled to the relief as claimed
    by her. Consequently, while allowing the writ appeal, judgment and
    order of the learned Single Judge has been set aside.
2712                                                       [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


12. We need to examine the correctness or otherwise of the decision
    of the Division Bench in the light of constitutional and statutory
    framework as well as in the backdrop of international developments.
13. Article 21 of the Constitution of India though at first blush appears
    to be a colourless article, it is a potent provision pregnant with wide
    width and scope having received extensive and liberal construction
    at the hands of this Court. Article 21 reads thus:
            21. Protection of life and personal liberty. – No person
            shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
            according to procedure established by law.
     13.1. 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.
14. 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 42 is as follows:
          42. Provision for just and humane conditions of work
          and maternity relief. – The State shall make provision
          for securing just and humane conditions of work and for
          maternity relief.
15. Another directive principle is contained in Article 51 of the
    Constitution of India. Amongst others, it says 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.
16. We may now refer to FR 101(a) as applicable to the State of Tamil
    Nadu. For ready reference, the same is extracted hereunder:
          Rule 101 (a) - maternity leave to female Government
          servants.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                             2713

            K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.


           Instructions under Rule 101 (a) – Maternity leave.
           1. (i) A competent authority may grant maternity leave on
           full pay to permanent married women Government servants
           and to non-permanent married women Government
           servants, who are appointed on regular capacity, for
           a period not exceeding 365 days, which may spread
           over from the pre-confinement rest to post confinement
           recuperation at the option of the Government servant.
           Non-permanent married women Government servants,
           who are appointed on regular capacity and join duty after
           delivery shall also be granted maternity leave for the
           remaining period of 365 days after deducting the number
           of days from the date of delivery to the date of joining
           in Government service (both days inclusive) for the post
           confinement recuperation.
           (ii) Non-permanent married women Government servants,
           who are appointed under the emergency provisions of the
           relevant service rules should take for maternity purposes,
           the earned leave for which they may be eligible. If, however,
           such a Government servant is not eligible for earned leave
           or if the leave to her credit is less than 365 days, maternity
           leave may be granted for a period not exceeding 365 days
           or for the period that falls short of 365 days, as the case
           may be. Non-permanent married women Government
           servants employed under the emergency provisions should
           have completed one year of continuous service including
           leave periods, if any, to become eligible for the grant of
           maternity leave.
           Provided that the maternity leave referred in (i) or (ii) above
           shall be granted to a married woman Government servant
           with less than two surviving children.
           Provided further that in the case of a woman Government
           servant with two surviving children born as twins in the
           first delivery, maternity leave shall be granted for one
           more delivery.
17. As per the first proviso to clause (ii) of FR 101(a), maternity leave
    referred to clauses (i) or (ii) shall be granted to a married woman
2714                                                      [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     Government servant with less than two surviving children. The second
     proviso says that in the case of a woman Government servant with
     two surviving children born as twins in the first delivery, maternity
     leave shall be granted for one more delivery.
18. Though provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act per se are not
    applicable to the State Government employees, nonetheless, we
    may make a reference to certain relevant provisions thereof for
    useful guidance. Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act is as under:
          5. Right to payment of maternity benefit.—(1) Subject
          to the provisions of this Act, every woman shall be entitled
          to, and her employer shall be liable for, the payment of
          maternity benefit at the rate of the average daily wage
          for the period of her actual absence, that is to say, the
          period immediately preceding the day of her delivery, the
          actual day of her delivery and any period immediately
          following that day.
          Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, ‘the
          average daily wage’ means the average of the woman’s
          wages payable to her for the days on which she has worked
          during the period of three calendar months immediately
          preceding the date from which she absents herself on
          account of maternity, the minimum rate of wage fixed or
          revised under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948),
          or ten rupees, whichever is the highest.
          (2) No woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit unless
          she has actually worked in an establishment of the
          employer from whom she claims maternity benefit, for a
          period of not less than eighty days in the twelve months
          immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery:
          Provided that the qualifying period of eighty days aforesaid
          shall not apply to a woman who has immigrated into
          the State of Assam and was pregnant at the time of the
          immigration.
          Explanation.—For the purpose of calculating under this
          sub-section the days on which a woman has actually
          worked in the establishment, the days for which she has
          been laid off or was on holidays declared under any law for
          the time being in force to be holidays with wages, during
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                            2715

            K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.


           the period of twelve months immediately preceding the
           date of her expected delivery shall be taken into account.
           (3) The maximum period for which any woman shall be
           entitled to maternity benefit shall be twenty-six weeks of
           which not more than eight weeks shall precede the date
           of her expected delivery :
           Provided that the maximum period entitled to maternity
           benefit by a woman having two or more than two surviving
           children shall be twelve weeks of which not more than six
           weeks shall precede the date of her expected delivery :
           Provided further that where a woman dies during this
           period, the maternity benefit shall be payable only for the
           days up to and including the day of her death:
           Provided also that where a woman, having been delivered
           of a child, dies during her delivery or during the period
           immediately following the date of her delivery, for which
           she is entitled for the maternity benefit, leaving behind in
           either case the child, the employer shall be liable for the
           maternity benefit for that entire period but if the child also
           dies during the said period, then, for the days up to and
           including the date of the death of the child.
           (4) A woman who legally adopts a child below the age of
           three months or a commissioning mother shall be entitled
           to maternity benefit for a period of twelve weeks from the
           date the child is handed over to the adopting mother or
           the commissioning mother, as the case may be.
           (5) In case where the nature of work assigned to a
           woman is of such nature that she may work from home,
           the employer may allow her to do so after availing of the
           maternity benefit for such period and on such conditions
           as the employer and the woman may mutually agree.
19. A careful perusal of the above provision would reveal that grant of
    maternity benefit is per se not denied to a woman employee having
    more than two children. Following amendment in the year 2017, a
    restriction has been introduced in Section 5 by inserting a proviso
    under sub-section (3) as to the entitlement of the period of maternity
2716                                                       [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     leave. A woman employee having less than two surviving children
     is entitled to a maximum period of benefit i.e. 26 weeks and for a
     woman employee having two or more than two surviving children,
     the benefit is restricted to 12 weeks. Thus, there is no ceiling or
     cap on the number of children to claim maternity benefit. Only thing
     is that in case of a woman employee having two or more than two
     surviving children seeking maternity leave, period of the benefit is
     reduced: from a maximum period of 26 weeks to a maximum of
     12 weeks.
20. Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act is also relevant. It deals with
    effect of laws and agreements inconsistent with the Maternity Benefit
    Act and declares that provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act shall
    have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained
    in any other law or in terms of any award, agreement or contract of
    service, whether made before or after the coming into force of the
    Maternity Benefit Act.
21. The objective of maternity leave has been expounded by this
    Court in the case of B. Shah Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
    Coimbatore2. This Court observed that maternity leave legislation
    is intended to achieve the object of doing social justice to women
    workers. It enables a woman worker not only to subsist but also
    to make up her dissipated energy, nurse her child, preserve her
    efficiency as a worker and maintain the level of her previous
    efficiency and output.
22. We may now deal with relevant provisions contained in international
    treaties and conventions dealing with maternity benefits.
23. Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United
    Nations in the year 1948. Article 25 thereof has got two sub-articles.
    Sub-article (1) says that everyone has the right to a standard of living
    adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family.
    This includes food, clothing, housing, medical care etc. However,
    Article 25(2) is relevant which is as under:
             2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care
             and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of
             wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.


2   AIR 1978 SC 12
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                       2717

            K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.


     23.1. Thus, Article 25(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human
           Rights recognizes that motherhood and childhood are entitled to
           special care and assistance. This principle acknowledges State
           intervention and support for maternity related entitlements.
24. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
    was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on
    16th December, 1966. India ratified the said covenant in the year
    1979. Article 10(2) recognizes that special protection should be
    accorded to mothers for a reasonable period before and after
    childbirth. During such period working mothers should be accorded
    paid leave or leave with adequate social security benefits. Under
    Article 12 all the States who are signatories to the aforesaid
    covenant acknowledged the steps to be taken to achieve the full
    realization of the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of
    physical and mental health. This would include provisions for the
    reduction of the stillbirth rate and of infant mortality and for the
    healthy development of the child.
25. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
    Against Women (CEDAW) was held in 1979 under the aegis of the
    United Nations. As a matter of fact, CEDAW was adopted by the
    United Nations General Assembly on 18th December, 1979. This
    convention was the culmination of more than 30 years of work by the
    United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, established in
    the year 1946, monitoring the situation of women around the world
    and to promote women’s rights. Thrust of CEDAW is maximum
    participation of women on equal terms with men in all fields of life to
    ensure full and complete development of a country. CEDAW is the
    most comprehensive international convention focused on eliminating
    discrimination against women. India ratified CEDAW in 1993.
     25.1. Article 11 emphasizes that appropriate measures should be
           taken by all nations to eliminate discrimination against women
           in the field of employment. Article 11(2) says that in order
           to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of
           marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work,
           the States shall take appropriate measures. As per clause (b),
           signatory States are under an obligation to introduce maternity
           leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of
           former employment, seniority or social allowances. Article 12(1)
2718                                                        [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


            obligates States to take all appropriate measures to eliminate
            discrimination against women in the field of healthcare including
            access to healthcare services particularly those related to
            family planning. On the other hand, Article 12(2) says that
            notwithstanding the provisions of Article 12(1), signatory States
            shall ensure to women appropriate services in connection with
            pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, granting
            free services where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition
            during pregnancy and lactation.
     25.2. Article 16(1)(e) affirms the right of a woman to decide freely
           and responsibly on the number and spacing of children and
           to have access to the information, education and means to
           do so. Article 16(1)(e) reads thus:

                Article 16
                1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures
                to eliminate discrimination against women in all
                matters relating to marriage and family relations and
                in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of
                men and women:

                 ***               ***           ***               ***
                (e) The same rights to decide freely and responsibly
                on the number and spacing of their children and to
                have access to the information, education and means
                to enable them to exercise these rights.

                 ***               ***           ***               ***

26. In its 20 th session held in 1999, CEDAW adopted several
    recommendations. General recommendation No.24 pertains to
    women and health. Such recommendation emphasized on the need to
    ensure access to adequate healthcare facilities particularly in respect
    of family planning, protection of women’s health and safety in working
    conditions, including safeguarding of the reproductive function, special
    protection from harmful types of work during pregnancy and with
    the provision for paid maternity leave. It was also emphasized that
    women should have the same rights as men to decide freely and
    responsibly on the number and spacing of their children.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                       2719

              K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.


27. A Maternity Protection Convention was held on 30th May, 2000 at
    Geneva under the aegis of the International Labour Organization.
    General Conference of the International Labour Organization adopted
    the proposals of the said Convention on 15th June, 2000. International
    labour standards have long recognized maternity protection as
    essential for promoting workplace equality and safeguarding maternal
    and child health. This Convention applies to all employed women
    including those in atypical forms of dependent work. Article 4 of
    this convention deals with maternity leave. As per clause (1), a
    woman to whom the said convention applied shall be entitled to a
    period of maternity leave of not less than 14 weeks. As per clause
    (4), maternity leave shall include a period of 6 weeks compulsory
    leave after childbirth for the protection of the health of the mother
    and that of the child. Clause (5) clarifies that the prenatal portion of
    maternity leave shall be extended by any period elapsing between
    the presumed date of childbirth and the actual date of childbirth,
    without reduction in any compulsory portion of postnatal leave.
     27.1. Under Article 8(1), it shall be unlawful for an employer to
           terminate the employment of a woman during her pregnancy.
           As per clause (2), a woman is guaranteed the right to return to
           the same position or an equivalent position paid at the same
           rate at the end of her maternity leave.
28. Thus, as can be seen from the above, through various international
    conventions, the world community has recognized the broad spectrum
    of reproductive rights which includes maternity benefits. Maternity
    leave is integral to maternity benefits. Reproductive rights are now
    recognized as part of several intersecting domains of international
    human rights law viz. the right to health, right to privacy, right to
    equality and non-discrimination and the right to dignity.
29. Such international developments had its impact on Indian law. In Suchita
    Srivastava Vs. Chandigarh Administration3, a three-Judge Bench of this
    Court in the context of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
    acknowledged the right of a woman to make reproductive choices and
    held that such a right is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. This
    Court held thus:



3   (2009) 9 SCC 1
2720                                                          [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


            22. There is no doubt that a woman›s right to make
            reproductive choices is also a dimension of “personal
            liberty” as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution
            of India. It is important to recognise that reproductive
            choices can be exercised to procreate as well as to
            abstain from procreating. The crucial consideration is that
            a woman’s right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity
            should be respected. This means that there should be
            no restriction whatsoever on the exercise of reproductive
            choices such as a woman’s right to refuse participation
            in sexual activity or alternatively the insistence on use
            of contraceptive methods. Furthermore, women are also
            free to choose birth control methods such as undergoing
            sterilisation procedures. Taken to their logical conclusion,
            reproductive rights include a woman’s entitlement to carry a
            pregnancy to its full term, to give birth and to subsequently
            raise children.

             ***                 ***             ***                  ***

30. This Court in Devika Biswas Vs. Union of India4 observed that the
    need to respect and protect reproductive rights and reproductive
    health of a person has been recognized. Reproductive right is an
    aspect of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. This
    decision was rendered in the backdrop of the sterlisation campaign
    carried out by the State. In Devika Biswas (supra), this court observed
    as under:
            106. The manner in which sterilisation procedures have
            reportedly been carried out endanger two important
            components of the right to life under Article 21 of the
            Constitution—the right to health and the reproductive
            rights of a person.

             ***                 ***             ***                  ***
            109. That the right to health is an integral part of the right
            to life does not need any repetition.



4   (2016) 10 SCC 726
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                              2721

              K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.


            110. Over time, there has been recognition of the need to
            respect and protect the reproductive rights and reproductive
            health of a person. Reproductive health has been defined
            as “the capability to reproduce and the freedom to make
            informed, free and responsible decisions. It also includes
            access to a range of reproductive health information, goods,
            facilities and services to enable individuals to make informed,
            free and responsible decisions about their reproductive
            behaviour”. The Committee on Economic, Social and
            Cultural Rights in General Comment No. 22 on the Right to
            Sexual and Reproductive Health under Article 12 of the
            International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
            Rights observed that “The right to sexual and reproductive
            health is an integral part of the right of everyone to the
            highest attainable physical and mental health.”
            111. This Court recognised reproductive rights as an aspect
            of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution in
            Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. The freedom to
            exercise these reproductive rights would include the right
            to make a choice regarding sterilisation on the basis of
            informed consent and free from any form of coercion.

             ***                  ***            ***                   ***

31. Elaborating on the contours of reproductive rights, this Court in X Vs.
    Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of
    NCT of Delhi5 observed that the ambit of reproductive rights is not
    restricted to the right of women to have or not to have children. It also
    includes the constellation of freedoms and entitlements that enable
    a woman to decide freely on all matters relating to her sexual and
    reproductive health. This Court observed that although human dignity
    inheres in every individual, it is susceptible to violation by external
    conditions and treatment imposed by the State. The right of every
    woman to make reproductive choices without undue interference
    from the State is central to the idea of human dignity. Deprivation
    of access to reproductive healthcare or emotional and physical


5   (2023) 9 SCC 433
2722                                                       [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     well-being also injures the dignity of women. This Court referred to
     Article 51 of the Constitution which urges the State to foster respect
     for international law and treaty obligations. Relevant extract of the
     said decision reads thus:
           101. The ambit of reproductive rights is not restricted to
           the right of women to have or not have children. It also
           includes the constellation of freedoms and entitlements that
           enable a woman to decide freely on all matters relating to
           her sexual and reproductive health. Reproductive rights
           include the right to access education and information
           about contraception and sexual health, the right to decide
           whether and what type of contraceptives to use, the right
           to choose whether and when to have children, the right to
           choose the number of children, the right to access safe and
           legal abortions, and the right to reproductive healthcare.
           Women must also have the autonomy to make decisions
           concerning these rights, free from coercion or violence.
32. In a recent decision, Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Police Vs.
    Raveena Yadav6 explained the purpose of maternity benefit. It is to
    ensure that a working lady may overcome the state of motherhood
    honourably, peaceably and undeterred by the fear of being victimized
    for forced absence from work during pre and post natal periods.
    Women now constituting a sizable portion of the work force in our
    country, must be treated with honour and dignity at places where
    they work to earn their livelihood. The High Court went on to explain
    the impact of pregnancy on the physiological and psychological
    state of a woman employee undergoing pregnancy. It is not just
    motherhood but also childhood that require special attention. Health
    issues of both mother as well as that of the child are to be kept in
    consideration while providing maternity leave. Concept of maternity
    leave is a matter of not just fair play and social justice but is also
    a constitutional guarantee to the women employees of this country
    towards fulfillment whereof the State is bound to act.
33. In Deepika Singh (supra), appellant at the material time was working
    as a nursing officer in the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education



6   MANU/DE/4823/2024
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                        2723

            K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.


     and Research, Chandigarh (PGIMER). Her spouse had two children
     from his first marriage. After his first wife passed away he married
     the appellant. In official record she declared the two children of
     her spouse from the first marriage as her children. On 04.06.2019
     she had her first biological child from her marriage. She applied for
     maternity leave in terms of Rule 43 of the Central Services (Leave)
     Rules, 1972 (‘1972 Rules’ hereinafter) which rules are applicable to
     PGIMER. Request of the appellant for grant of maternity leave was
     rejected on the ground that she had two surviving children and had
     availed of child care leave earlier for the two children born from the
     first marriage of her spouse. Her first biological child was considered
     as the third child. Therefore her request for grant of maternity leave
     was found to be inadmissible in terms of the 1972 Rules.
     33.1. Appellant challenged the said decision before the Central
           Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (Tribunal). However,
           her original application was dismissed by the Tribunal. When
           the appellant moved the High Court calling into question the
           decision of the Tribunal, High Court also dismissed the same
           on the ground that there was no perversity or illegality in the
           judgment of the Tribunal.
     33.2. Thereafter, the matter travelled to this Court. This Court referred
           to Rule 43 of the 1972 Rules which deals with maternity leave.
           As per Rule 43(1), only a female Government servant with
           less than two surviving children may be granted maternity
           leave. This Court opined that provisions of Rule 43(1) must be
           imbued with a purposive construction. Since it is a beneficial
           legislation, it has to be construed with a purpose oriented
           approach and must receive a liberal construction to promote
           its objects. The courts must bridge the gap between law and
           society through the use of purposive interpretation. Though
           this Court acknowledged that the Maternity Benefit Act has
           no application to PGIMER as an establishment, yet for the
           purpose of adopting an approach which furthers legislative
           policy, referred to the provisions of the Maternity Benefit
           Act to derive some guidance therefrom. After an exhaustive
           analysis of Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, this Court
           observed that the said Act was enacted to secure women’s
           right to maternity leave and to afford women with as much
           flexibility as possible to live an autonomous life, both as a
2724                                                       [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


            mother and as a worker. Thereafter, this Court referred to the
            various international treaties and conventions.
     33.3. In the facts of that case, this Court observed that spouse of
           the appellant had a prior marriage which had ended as a
           result of the death of his wife after which the appellant married
           him. However, what is relevant and important is the following
           declaration of this Court:
                24. …….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……
     33.4. Thus, this Court was categorical in declaring that the factum
           of appellant’s spouse having 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.
           Grant of child care leave to the appellant for the two children
           of her spouse from his previous marriage cannot be used to
           disentitle her to maternity leave under Rule 43 of the 1972
           Rules. In the context of employment, child birth has to be
           construed as a natural incident of life and, hence, provisions
           for maternity leave must be construed in that perspective.
           Observing that when courts are confronted with such situations,
           they would do well to attempt to give effect to the purpose
           of the law in question rather than to prevent its application.
34. Insofar the present case is concerned it is true that appellant has
    two biological children out of her first wedlock. But that was before
    entry into her service. Post entry into service and from her subsisting
    marriage, this is her first child. It has come on record that the two
    children out of her first wedlock are not residing with her but with
    their father, who is having their custody.
35. Policy of the State to arrest population growth by resorting to various
    population control measures is certainly a laudable objective. So is
    the objective of granting maternity benefit to women employees.
    The object of having two child norm as part of the 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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                      2725

               K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.


     The two must be harmonized in a purposive and rationale manner
     to achieve the social objective.
36. In the circumstances, we are unable to agree with the view taken by
    the Division Bench of the High Court. Though learned Single Judge
    had granted the relief to the appellant, we are also unable to persuade
    ourselves to the line of reasoning of the learned Single Judge.
37. We accordingly set aside the judgment and order of the Division
    Bench of the High Court dated 14.09.2022 and declare that 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.
38. Appeal is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as
    to cost.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan