In the recent case of K. Umadevi vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [2025 INSC 781], the Supreme Court of India, in a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered a landmark judgment on May 23, 2025, reaffirming the reproductive rights of working women. The case arose from the denial of maternity leave to a female government employee for her first biological child from a second marriage, on the grounds that she had two children from a previous, now-dissolved marriage. The Court set aside the Madras High Court’s decision, holding that state policies on population control cannot override a woman’s constitutional right to dignity. It emphasised that maternity benefits are a component of social justice and must be interpreted in harmony with the broader framework of women’s rights and family life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The case involved K. Umadevi, an English teacher in a government school in Tamil Nadu, whose personal circumstances brought a crucial service rule under judicial scrutiny. The judgment is a detailed exploration of how personal life changes, such as divorce and remarriage, intersect with employment rights, and how courts must adopt a purposive and humane approach rather than a rigid, technical one.
The facts of the Case
The story of the legal battle began with the petitioner marrying her first husband in 2006 and had two children, born in 2007 and 2011. In December 2012, she joined the Tamil Nadu state government as a teacher. Her first marriage was legally dissolved in 2017, and the custody of her two children remained with her former husband.
A year later, in 2018, Ms. Umadevi remarried. When she conceived a child from this second marriage, she applied for maternity leave for a period of nine months, from August 2021 to May 2022.
Her request was turned down. On August 28, 2021, the Chief Educational Officer of Dharmapuri District rejected her application. The reason cited was Rule 101(a) of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules, which governs the service conditions of state employees. The rule stipulates that maternity leave can only be granted to a woman government servant with “less than two surviving children.” The authorities concluded that since Ms. Umadevi already had two children from her first marriage, she was ineligible for maternity leave for her third child. The rejection order flatly stated that there was “no provision” for granting such leave for a third child born through remarriage.
The Journey through the Courts
Aggrieved by this decision, Ms. Umadevi approached the Madras High Court. A single-judge bench heard her plea and, in a judgment dated March 25, 2022, ruled in her favour. The judge adopted a liberal interpretation, holding that the central Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, should prevail over the state rule. The court reasoned that the phrase “having surviving children” should imply that the children are in the mother’s custody. Since Ms. Umadevi’s children from her first marriage were not living with her, the child from her second marriage was, for all practical purposes, her first child in her new family unit. The single judge set aside the rejection order and directed the state to sanction her leave.
However, the relief was short-lived. The Government of Tamil Nadu filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the same court. On September 14, 2022, the Division Bench overturned the single judge’s order. It took a stricter view, stating that the government’s policy was clear and restricted the benefit to two children. It held that maternity leave was not a fundamental right but a right flowing from service rules. The bench found the single judge’s decision unsustainable and allowed the government’s appeal, leaving Ms. Umadevi without the benefit.
This set the stage for the final appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court’s analysis
The Supreme Court, in a detailed and empathetic judgment authored by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, delved deep into the constitutional and international legal frameworks surrounding maternity rights.
The state government argued that its policy was tied to fiscal responsibility and the national objective of population control. Granting leave to Ms. Umadevi, it contended, would set a precedent that could strain the exchequer and undermine the “small family norm.”
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Division Bench had erred by not following the spirit of a previous Supreme Court decision in Deepika Singh vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, which had dealt with a similar situation. It was also emphasized that the right to maternity leave is a facet of a woman’s reproductive right, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution—the right to life and personal liberty.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was multi-layered:
- Constitutional Foundation: The Court grounded its decision firmly in the Constitution. It described Article 21 as a “potent provision” that includes the right to live with dignity, the right to health, and the right to make reproductive choices. It also invoked Article 42, a Directive Principle of State Policy, which mandates the state to make provisions for “just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief.”
- Harmonising Conflicting Goals: The Court acknowledged the state’s objective of population control as “laudable.” However, it stated that this goal is not “mutually exclusive” with the objective of providing maternity benefits. The two, the Court said, “must be harmonized in a purposive and rationale manner to achieve the social objective.” A rigid rule that forces a woman to choose between her employment and her desire to start a family in a new marriage was seen as counterproductive.
- Purposive Interpretation: The Court stressed that beneficial legislations like maternity leave rules must be given a “purpose-oriented approach.” The purpose is to protect the dignity of motherhood and enable a woman to care for her child without fear of losing her job. The fact that Ms. Umadevi’s children from her first marriage were not in her custody and that the child in question was the first from her subsisting marriage were crucial factors. The Court implicitly suggested that the term “surviving children” in the rule should not be read in a purely statistical or biological sense, but in the context of the employee’s current family and dependents.
- International Obligations: The judgment extensively referenced international conventions that India has ratified, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes that “motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance,” and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which obligates states to provide maternity leave with pay. The Court used these to underscore that maternity benefits are a globally recognized human right.
- Guidance from the Maternity Benefit Act: The Court drew guidance from the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. It noted that the Act, after the 2017 amendment, does not completely bar maternity leave for a third child; it only reduces the duration of the leave. This, the Court observed, shows a legislative intent to provide support, not to create a hard stop after two children.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court concluded that the view taken by the Madras High Court’s Division Bench was incorrect. It stated, “In the circumstances, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court.”
The Court declared that Ms. Umadevi was entitled to maternity leave as per the rules. It set aside the Division Bench’s order and directed the Tamil Nadu government to release all admissible maternity benefits to her within two months.
The judgment is a significant step forward in the jurisprudence of service law and human rights. It sends a clear message that administrative rules, especially those concerning fundamental aspects of life like childbirth, reproductive rights cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. They must be viewed through the prism of the Constitution and with a sense of compassion that acknowledges the complex realities of human lives. The Court has affirmed that the state, as a model employer, must not only create policies but also apply them in a manner that is just, humane, and respects the dignity of its employees.
(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)
Related:
Maternity leave no ground for dismissal: SC
Woman Employee Entitled To Claim Maternity Leave For Period Of 6 Months: Allahabad HC
Policy on paid menstrual leave not on the horizons of the union government?