Summary
The Supreme Court held that a Tamil Nadu government school teacher who had two children from a first marriage before entering service, both in the custody of her former husband, could not be denied maternity leave under FR 101(a) for the first child of her subsequent marriage. Reading the rule purposively in light of Article 21 (reproductive rights as a facet of personal liberty), Article 42, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, international conventions and Deepika Singh, the Court harmonised the State's two-child norm with the object of maternity benefit and directed that the leave be granted.
Issues
- Whether a woman government servant with two surviving children from a dissolved first marriage, born before she entered service and not in her custody, is entitled to maternity leave under FR 101(a) of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules for her first child from a subsequent marriage.
- Whether the right to maternity leave is a facet of the reproductive rights protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, or merely a statutory or service-condition right as held by the Division Bench.
- Whether the State's two-child norm as a population control measure and the object of providing maternity benefit are mutually exclusive.
- Whether the decision in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal supports the employee or, as the Division Bench held, the State.
Provisions considered
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaLife under Article 21 means life in its fullest sense and includes the right to health, dignity and privacy. Following Suchita Srivastava, Devika Biswas and X v. Principal Secretary, a woman's reproductive choices, including the entitlement to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth and raise children, are a dimension of personal liberty; maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits, which form part of reproductive rights. (¶¶ 13, 13.1, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- Articles 42 and 51(c), Constitution of IndiaArticle 42 directs the State to make provision for just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief; Article 51(c) directs the State to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations, which the Court used to draw on the UDHR, ICESCR, CEDAW and the ILO Maternity Protection Convention, 2000. (¶¶ 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31)
- FR 101(a) (maternity leave), first and second provisos, Tamil Nadu Fundamental RulesThe rule permits maternity leave on full pay up to 365 days; the first proviso confines it to a married woman government servant with less than two surviving children, and the second permits one more delivery where the two surviving children are twins from the first delivery. The Court declared the appellant entitled to leave under this rule, treating the child of her subsisting marriage, conceived after entry into service, as her first child from that marriage, the earlier two children being in the former husband's custody. (¶¶ 16, 17, 34, 35, 37)
- Section 5, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961Though not applicable to State Government employees, the Act was referred to for guidance. Section 5 does not deny maternity benefit to a woman with more than two children; after the 2017 amendment, the proviso to sub-section (3) only reduces the maximum period from 26 weeks to 12 weeks for a woman with two or more surviving children. There is thus no ceiling on the number of children for claiming the benefit. (¶¶ 18, 19, 33.2)
- Section 27, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961Noted as giving the Act overriding effect over anything inconsistent in any other law, award, agreement or contract of service. (¶ 20)
Held
- Maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits, which the international community (UDHR Article 25(2), ICESCR Article 10(2), CEDAW Articles 11, 12 and 16(1)(e), ILO Maternity Protection Convention 2000) recognises as part of reproductive rights; these rights are recognised in India as a facet of personal liberty under Article 21, which includes the right to health, dignity and privacy, and intersect with the rights to equality and non-discrimination. (¶¶ 13.1, 23.1, 24, 25.1, 25.2, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- Maternity leave legislation is a measure of social justice enabling a woman worker to subsist, recover her energy, nurse her child and preserve her efficiency; the concept of maternity leave is not merely a matter of fair play but a constitutional guarantee to women employees towards whose fulfilment the State is bound to act. (¶¶ 21, 32)
- Following Deepika Singh, a rule restricting maternity leave to a woman with less than two surviving children is beneficial and must receive a purposive, liberal construction; childbirth is a natural incident of life in the context of employment, and courts should give effect to the purpose of the law rather than prevent its application. There, the spouse's two children from a prior marriage did not impinge on the employee's entitlement to maternity leave for her sole biological child. (¶¶ 33, 33.2, 33.3, 33.4)
- The appellant's two children from her first marriage were born before she entered service and are in the custody of their father; the child from her subsisting marriage is her first child after entry into service and from that marriage. The State's objective of population control through a two-child norm and the objective of granting maternity benefit are not mutually exclusive and must be harmonised purposively and rationally; denial of maternity leave in these circumstances was unsustainable. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36)
- The Court disagreed with the Division Bench's view but also did not endorse the Single Judge's reasoning (that the Maternity Benefit Act overrides the Fundamental Rules and that 'surviving children' means children in the mother's custody), granting relief on its own reasoning under FR 101(a). (¶¶ 10, 36, 37)
Result
Appeal allowed. Judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated 14 September 2022 set aside; the appellant declared entitled to maternity leave under FR 101(a), with admissible maternity benefits to be released to her within two months. No order as to costs.