Written by Rishu Jaiswal
The Supreme Court passed a significant ruling on May 23 allowing ‘maternity benefit’ to a -based teacher for her third child under Fundamental Rule 101 (a). The woman — an English teacher at a government higher secondary school — sought relief after her plea was rejected by the Madras High Court.
Fundamental Rule 101(a), pertaining to the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 1961, addresses the eligibility criteria for maternity leave of state government servants in India.
Here’s what the Supreme Court said:
# The apex court set aside the judgment declining maternity leave to the school teacher, and said she was entitled to receive maternity benefits despite having two children.
# Maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits and reproductive rights are now recognised as part of international human rights law like right to health, privacy, equality and non-discrimination and dignity, remarked the Supreme Court. While hearing the matter, a division bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan disagreed with the findings of the Madras HC and said, “Thus, as can be seen…, through various international conventions, the world community has recognized the broad spectrum of reproductive rights which includes maternity benefits.”
# Emphasising on the Article 21 of the Constitution, the top court bench said, “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.”
# The Supreme Court also noted that the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, does not bar maternity leave for women with more than two children, and only limits the duration of leave — 26 weeks for those with up to two children, and 12 weeks for those with more. It said that maternity leave itself is not denied based on the number of children.
# The court also acknowledged the importance of population control measures, and said, “Population control and reproductive rights are not mutually exclusive goals. They must be reconciled in a rational, humane manner.”
A timeline of the case in SC
The woman started working as an English teacher at a government higher secondary school in Tamil Nadu’s Dharmapuri district in 2012.
She had two children from her first marriage, which ended in a divorce in 2017. The kids are in the custody of her former husband.
After marrying again in 2018, she became pregnant in 2021 and applied for maternity leave from August 17, 2021, to May 13, 2022, covering both pre- and post-natal periods. Her application for leave was rejected, and she subsequently filed a case in the high court.
Initially, the case went to a single-judge bench who ruled in her favour and ordered the government organisation to grant her maternity leave.
However, the state government challenged the decision, and a division bench of the HC reversed the decision, prompting the woman to approach the apex court.
— with inputs from PTI
Rishu Jaiswal is an intern with
