Beyond the Rulebook: Supreme Court Upholds Maternity Leave as a Fundamental Right

From Policy to Principle: How maternity leave entered the realm of Fundamental Rights?

For decades, maternity leave in India has been viewed as an employer's goodwill gesture rather than an absolute right. This impression has now been fundamentally transformed by a landmark judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled, K. Umadevi v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 [1] wherein, maternity leave has been recognized as a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution [2]. This judicial milestone goes beyond legal technicalities to affirm that motherhood, dignity and health are foundational to a woman's right to life and equality.

This ruling arrives at a critical moment, advancing the protection of women's dignity and health. While laws like the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (MB Act) [3] exist on paper, many women, particularly those in informal or contractual employment, continue facing workplace discrimination when they choose motherhood. Some are pressured to resign, others are denied their rightful leave, as employers often perceive maternity provisions as an inconvenience rather than a right. The Supreme Court's decisive judgment redefines this narrative, establishing maternity protection as a constitutional imperative rather than discretionary benevolence.

The true significance of this verdict lies in its universal applicability. The Court has categorically stated that maternity rights transcend employment categories. Whether a woman holds permanent, temporary or contractual status, her entitlement to health safeguards, dignity and job security during maternity remains inviolable. This eliminates a critical gap that previously enabled employers to circumvent their obligations, ensuring no woman faces professional consequences for embracing motherhood.

This judgment represents more than legal progress. It positions India alongside global benchmarks set by international organizations like the ILO and WHO, acknowledging that maternity protection constitutes a crucial component of human rights, public welfare and economic equity. When women are compelled to abandon careers for motherhood, the repercussions extend beyond individuals to families, businesses and the national economy. By enshrining maternity rights in constitutional principles, the Court has challenged systemic barriers that hinder women's professional participation.

This victory extends beyond working mothers to society at large. It reinforces that genuine equality requires more than theoretical rights. Rather, it demands practical safeguards enabling women to flourish without compromise. The verdict sends an unambiguous message i.e., supporting motherhood is not a matter of choice but a societal obligation. With this ruling, that obligation has now attained the force of constitutional law.

Factual backdrop of K. Umadevi v. State of Tamil Nadu

In this case, the appellant, K. Umadevi [4], married in the year 2006 and this marriage bore her two children in the years 2007 and 2011, respectively. However, this marriage ended in divorce in 2017. The custody of both the children were handed over to her ex-husband. Umadevi also started teaching English as a PG Assistant teacher in the year 2012 at Government Higher Secondary School in P.Gollapatti, Dharmapuri District of Tamil Nadu. This school was managed by the state government. Post the divorce, she remarried in September 2018 with Mr. Rajkumar. In 2021, she conceived again from her second marriage and henceforth, applied for a maternity leave. She applied for a period of nine months in order to cover for both her prenatal and postnatal stages.

However, the Chief Educational Officer of her district rejected her maternity leave stating Rule 101 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules[5]. The reasoning given by the Officer was that since Umadevi already had two surviving children, she has exhausted her limit prescribed under the Rule which confined the number of maternity leave in government services up to two children. The first child of Umadevi arising out of the new wedlock was not taken into consideration while coming to this decision.

Umadevi, being aggrieved by this decision, filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Madras High Court. The Learned Single Judge held that the rejection of her maternity leave was unjustified and special emphasis was laid on the fact that her two surviving children from the previous marriage were not in her custody. Henceforth, the respective authority was directed to sanction her 9 month maternity leave. The Government of Tamil Nadu, then aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single Judge preferred an appeal which was taken up by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court. This appeal led to the reversal of the judgment passed by the Learned Single judge. The court held that Umadevi was not entitled to maternity leave and the fact of custody or second marriage was irrelevant to the present matter. The court also took a significant stance of stating that maternity leave is not a fundamental right and henceforth, policy restrictions will be binding.

This decision of the Division Bench was further challenged in the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is the present case. It raised an important question for consideration pertaining to the interpretation of reproductive rights of a woman.

Journey of Article 21: From personal liberty to maternity rights

Article 21 states that- “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” In the initial years of adopting the constitution, this Article was viewed narrowly. However, over the course of time, especially with the judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [6], the term life developed a more expansive meaning. The definition of it evolved from a mere animal existence to a right to live with dignity, security, health, privacy and education. Henceforth, Article 21 now acts as a broad umbrella of rights that might not be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. One of those rights that originated from this article was right to bodily autonomy and reproductive rights.

In the case of Devika Biswas v. Union of India, (2023) [7], the Hon’ble Supreme Court had previously dealt with a similar issue, where a woman was denied maternity leave for her first biological child merely because she had availed child care leave for her husband's children from an earlier marriage. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal [8] emphasized that social realities and individual circumstances must inform legal interpretation. This interpretation was strengthened by earlier rulings such as Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, (2009) [9] which recognized reproductive autonomy as an intrinsic facet of personal liberty and X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Dept., (2023) [10] which expanded the scope of reproductive rights to include access to reproductive healthcare and protection from coercion.

Drawing on these precedents, the Supreme Court in Umadevi reiterated that reproductive rights are not restricted to the right to procreate, but include the right to health, bodily autonomy and dignity, rights flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. Another Article taken into consideration was Article 42 [11], which is a Directive Principle of State Policy, which sets up the moral and social objectives for the governance of the country.

By ruling in her favour, the Court reinforced the idea that Article 21 is a living, breathing provision, constantly expanding to respond to the lived realities of people, especially women.  Ultimately, the Court held that the denial of maternity leave to Umadevi was arbitrary, unjust and contrary to both constitutional guarantees and human rights principles. It reaffirmed that the purpose of maternity benefits is not only to protect women's health and dignity but also to uphold their right to equality and full participation in the workforce. This judgment is a powerful reminder that laws must be interpreted not just by the letter, but by their spirit, one rooted in empathy, inclusion and justice. This case once again pushed the boundaries of Article 21 reinforcing its dynamic source of protection for fundamental rights.

Legal Ambiguities and Implementation Challenges

The Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in K. Umadevi v. State of Tamil Nadu designating maternity leave as a fundamental right under Article 21, holds great promise but it leaves several procedural and practical issues unresolved.

1. Writ Jurisdiction v. Statutory Remedy

One of the most pressing unanswered questions is whether aggrieved women can bypass the MB Act and directly approach higher courts under Articles 32 [12] or 226 [13]. While the MB Act provides remedies through labour inspectors and internal channels, the Court’s recognition of maternity leave as a fundamental right leaves open the issue of whether the statutory remedy remains the only option or if a writ petition citing constitutional violations is also a valid route. The Court did not address this point in its elaborative judgment.

2. Multiplicity of Forums and Jurisdictional Irony

The judgment misses out on addressing confusion arising from overlapping jurisdictions. Under Section 27 of MB Act [14] and its interactions with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) [15], disputes in central-government establishments may fall under different authorities compared to state-run matters. This divergence could lead to dual or conflicting proceedings, highlighting the need for legislative or judicial clarification.

3. Inclusion of Informal Sector Workers

While the judgment firmly applies to formal employment agreements, it remains mute on the vast informal workforce. With over 70% of the Indian workforce in this segment (majority women), questions persist about how the constitutional guarantee translates into enforceability, benefits financing and awareness among informal workers.

4. Role of Human Rights Commissions

Even though maternity leave now qualifies as a human right, the judgment fails to elaborate whether bodies like the National Human Rights Commission India (NHRC) or State Commissions can entertain direct complaints or whether recourse must still follow the MB Act’s remedial framework.

5. Financing Requirements for Employers, Especially MSMEs

Another notable gap is the lack of guidance on how small and medium enterprises who may lack financial strength can provide such mandatory maternity benefits. The Court called for a "universal maternity contributory corpus" but stopped short of prescribing any mechanism to establish, finance or distribute such a fund.

Concluding remarks:

In the continuous fight for gender equality in the workplace, the Hon’ble Supreme Court's ruling that maternity leave is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is unquestionably a turning point. This legal recognition, which is based on the more general protections of health, dignity and personal liberty, represents a change from viewing maternity as a welfare issue or a matter of policy discretion to viewing it as an unalienable fundamental right.

Although the judgment's intent is progressive, the important legal and procedural issues it fails to address lessen its influence. First, there is uncertainty regarding whether women can directly exercise constitutional remedies and circumvent the MB Act's statutory structure. Does the constitutional route have the power to supersede current legislative avenues if maternity leave is now considered a part of the right to life? Or is it necessary to use all available legislative remedies before turning to the higher courts? Employers, courts and litigants are placed in a legal limbo in the absence of definitive answers.

Second, there is a greater chance of disjointed litigation and uneven results since the ruling ignores the jurisdictional overlaps between different labour laws and the constitutional framework. Furthermore, workers in the unorganized sector, who make up the majority of the Indian labour force, are still excluded from the calculation. The ruling's transformational potential is limited by the Court's reticence regarding how this right would be implemented for them. Moreover, while the Court has spoken of a contributory corpus to ease the financial burden on employers, no roadmap has been provided for its creation or funding. Without structural and financial support, this right may remain largely aspirational, especially for small enterprises that struggle with compliance and capacity.

Nevertheless, the judgment's interpretation of Article 21 is important for the larger story of reproductive justice and gender-sensitive constitutional interpretation, not simply for maternity rights. It serves as a reminder that fundamental rights are dynamic and should change to reflect societal demands and realities. The Court has established a constitutional basis for upcoming changes and interventions by acknowledging the inter-connectedness of work, health and motherhood.

The above article is authored by our Senior Associate Hrishabh Tiwari and Interns Torsha Chowdhury and Khushi Jakhar

REFERENCES:

[1] K. Umadevi v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1204

[2] Constitution of India, Art 21.

[3] Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

[4] Supra (note 1).

[5] Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules, Rule 101 (a).

[6] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.

[7] Devika Biswas v. Union of India, (2023) 13 SCC 681.

[8] Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1088.

[9] Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 14 SCR 989.

[10] X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Dept., (2023) 9 SCC 433.

[11] Constitution of India, Art 42.

[12] Constitution of India, Art 32.

[13] Constitution of India, Art 226.

[14] Maternity Benefit Act, § 27.

[15] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.