LexK. UMADEVI versus GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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;
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.