Authored By: Vanshika Vaishalik
Galgotias University
CASE TITLE: Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors
COURT: Supreme Court of India
CITATION: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.16864/2021
JUDGES: Hon’ble CJI D Y Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala
PETITIONER- Shalini Dharmani
RESPONDENT- State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors
INTRODUCTION
The case concerns the denial of child care leave (CCL) to a mother working for the government who is caring for a child with a rare disability. The petitioner, an assistant professor, sought CCL under Central Civil Services Rules Rule 43-C, which the state had not ratified. Because it raised significant problems about gender equality, constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21[1], and the State’s obligations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016[2], the case was a landmark decision in the promotion of inclusive and fair workplace policies.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Shalini Dharmani, the petitioner, is an assistant professor of geography at Government College in Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh. The 14-year-old kid she is raising alone has Osteogenesis Imperfecta, sometimes referred to as “brittle bone disease,” a rare and incurable genetic condition. This disease severely restricts his range of motion, increases his risk of fractures, and requires multiple surgeries, continuous care, and prolonged therapy. Because of the sensitive and serious nature of her child’s condition, Ms. Dharmani had to take multiple leaves of absence to care for him, which entirely exhausted her permitted and admissible leave entitlements.
Since no more regular leave was available, she applied for Child Care Leave (CCL) under Rule 43‑C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules), 1972 (CCS Rules). This legislation grants female government workers up to 730 days of paid leave during their employment to care for up to two children under the age of 18. According to specific government guidelines, this benefit is extended for children with disabilities until they become 22.
On November 16, 2018, however, she was notified by her institution’s principal that Rule 43-C[3] was not included in the State of Himachal Pradesh’s own leave laws. Her application was denied since she was ineligible for CCL. Then, on December 26, 2018, Ms. Dharmani formally petitioned the Department of Higher Education to develop Rule 43-C to support staff like herself who are responsible for children with severe disabilities. The authorities turned down her request.
She was compelled to ask the Himachal Pradesh High Court for a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. She argued that CCL’s denial was arbitrary and a breach of her fundamental rights under Articles 14 (right to equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), and 21 (right to life with dignity). However, the High Court rejected her writ case on April 23, 2021, upholding the State’s argument that Rule 43-C did not apply to state employees because it had not yet been put into effect.
Following that Ms. Dharmani filed a special leave appeal with the Supreme Court of India, claiming that the denial of CCL in her instance brought up more significant constitutional and human rights concerns than merely service standards. Additionally, she referred to Section 80 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016[4], which mandates that the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities examine the policies and procedures of the State Government and recommend changes to eliminate barriers that individuals with disabilities and their caregivers must face.
The State Commissioner’s admission in an affidavit that Himachal Pradesh lacks a policy to support caregivers of children with disabilities further reinforced her opposition. Because of these circumstances, the Supreme Court was able to assess whether the State’s delay was constitutional and how it affected the rights of working mothers who were in charge of providing care.
ISSUES
- Whether the State Government’s denial of the petitioner Child Care Leave (CCL) due to the non-adoption of Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
- Since caring for a disabled child is a constitutionally protected interest under Article 21 (Right to Life with Dignity), should it be eligible for affirmative government support?
- Whether the State’s failure to create a disability-sensitive leave policy is a violation of its legislative obligation under Section 80 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONER
The Petitioner Shalini Dharmani, accompanied by her lawyer, presented several legal and constitutional arguments before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to support her request for Child Care Leave (CCL) to care for her son, who has osteogenesis imperfecta, a rare and severe disability. Given her situation as a single mother of a disabled child, the petitioner contended that the denial of CCL amounted to discriminatory treatment. Her rights to a dignified life (Article 21), equality (Article 14), and avoidance of sex-based discrimination (Article 15) were all violated[5]. She asserted that her constitutional rights were severely violated by having to choose between her employment and her son’s medical needs.
The petitioner claimed that by neglecting to develop or put into effect any policies that assist caregivers of individuals with disabilities, the State of Himachal Pradesh had breached its obligations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, specifically Section 80[6], which requires the State to address systemic barriers affecting individuals with disabilities and their families.
The petitioner contended that CCL should be viewed as a basic necessity to enable women caregivers to engage in meaningful labour, particularly with regard to underprivileged children, rather than as a mere job benefit.
ARGUEMENTS BY THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents primarily cited administrative and legal distinctions between the federal and state civil servants to justify their positions including the State of Himachal Pradesh and its Department of Higher Education. The respondents contended that Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which provides child care leave (CCL) to female government employees, had not been ratified by the Himachal Pradesh government.They argued that the State Government is not bound by the CCS Rules unless they are specifically mentioned in the state’s leave regulations, and that they only apply to central government employees.
The responses contended that as CCL was exempt from the leave laws that applied to employees in Himachal Pradesh, the petitioner lacked any enforceable legal or fundamental rights. They maintained that CCL is a policy based benefit rather than a fundamental right and that its availability is contingent to the administrative decisions made by the state government.
The State argued that unless the policy is blatantly discriminatory or capricious, courts shouldn’t get involved in executive policymaking decisions about the establishment or rejection of leave and service laws. They contend that the constitutionally granted autonomy of state governments under the federal system would be violated by judicial orders to implement central rules. The respondents emphasized that as the petitioner had already utilized all of the other leave options, which had been generously granted, the State had not acted in bad faith or in a discriminatory manner.
JUDGEMENT
The petitioner is a single mother whose 14-year-old son suffers from Osteogenesis Imperfecta, a rare and severe condition. The bench, presided over by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud recognized the high care burden of the petitioner right away. The petitioner had exhausted all of his leave entitlements under Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, and was denied Child Care Leave (CCL) because The rule was not accepted by the government of Himachal Pradesh [7].
The Court found that the State’s mere failure to implement Rule 43-C could not be used as an excuse to refuse CCL to a woman in such a critical caregiving situation. It emphasized that, especially in cases where the child is impaired, child care leave is a basic right guaranteed by Articles 14, 15, and 21 and is not merely a matter of policy discretion. The Court recognized that denying a working mother this kind of support violates her rights to equality, non discrimination, and dignity and prevents her from being able to participate meaningfully in the labour[8].
The Court further underlined that gendered caregiving obligations are a structural barrier to women’s job advancement and that the State must act proactively to eliminate them. It was mentioned that working women, particularly moms of children with disabilities, bear an unfair burden and that refusing them the leave they require amounts to indirect discrimination.
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016’s Section 80[9], which requires State Commissioners to identify and address policy shortcomings that affect individuals with disabilities and their caregivers, was also referenced by the Court. The State Commissioner’s testimony, which said that Himachal Pradesh lacked a policy framework for granting leave to caregivers of children with disabilities, supported the petitioner’s argument.
In view the Supreme Court issued the following orders: The Government of Himachal Pradesh was directed to review current leave legislation, particularly with regard to adding provisions for child care leave, in light of women’s constitutional rights and the mandates of the RPwD Act.
A high-level committee headed by the Chief Secretary and consisting of the State Commissioner under the RPwD Act, Secretaries of Social Welfare, and Women and Child Development was to meet with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The group had until July 31, 2024, to provide its recommendations.
Pending the conclusion of this policy reform, the authorities were directed to carefully evaluate Given her child’s medical requirements, Ms. Dharmani submitted an application for CCL. The decision is a historic affirmation of caregiving as a constitutional priority and encourages state governments to adopt inclusive, disability-sensitive governance. It also changes the focus from welfare to entitlement.
LEGAL REASONING
The Court’s legal reasoning was based on the knowledge that Child Care Leave (CCL) is not merely an administrative benefit but rather a mechanism to attain constitutional safeguards under Articles 14, 15, and 21[10]. It was determined that a female employee’s rights to equality, non discrimination, and a dignified life were infringed when she was denied CCL because she was a mother of a child with a major disability. The Court contended that discrimination happens when unequals get the same treatment, citing the idea of substantive equality. The unique needs of female caregivers must therefore be considered in State policies.
The Court also noted Section 80 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandates that the State Commissioner identify and recommend the removal of barriers to accessing rights and benefits. The State believed that it had violated its statutory duties by failing to establish a policy or rule that would have allowed parents of disabled children to take time off. The Court’s decision that gender-sensitive and disability-inclusive policy frameworks are fundamental to constitutional government prompted the State to modify its leave regulations.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant turning point in the evolution of disability and gender justice in India as well as the recognition of care as a constitutional concern. Through the transformation of Child Care Leave (CCL) from a discretionary welfare measure to a constitutionally protected entitlement, the Court has re examined the limits of work benefits from the perspectives of human dignity and substantive equality. The petitioner’s predicament was a metaphor for the challenges faced by working mothers, especially those with disabled children. The Court acknowledged that in these circumstances, women are forced to choose unfairly between working and taking care of others due to the absence of enabling laws like CCL. This not only violates the core requirements of Article 21, which guarantees the right to live with dignity, but it also undermines the promise of equal protection under the law inherent in Articles 14 and 15.
Importantly, the Court ruled that States have a concrete obligation to interpret the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with purpose in order to provide institutional frameworks that support individuals with disabilities and their caretakers. The Court’s instruction to the Himachal Pradesh Government to modify its leave policy and form a multi-departmental committee demonstrates its proactive commitment to judicial involvement for policy change.
In conclusion, this decision not only provides the petitioner with relief but also sets a precedent that may influence employment legislation in all Indian states, ensuring that the Constitution’s guarantees of equality, inclusion, and dignity be upheld in public employment. It also clearly states that the state must actively integrate gendered caregiving realities into its governance frameworks and that caregiving is not invisible.
REFERENCE(S):
[1] Constitution of India, article 14, 15, 21
[2] Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (India), s 80
[3] Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972 (India), r 43-C
[4] Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (India), s 80
[5] Constitution of India, arts 14, 15, 21
[6] Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (India), s 80
[7] The Analysis, ‘Refusal of Mother’s Child Care Leave Violates Constitutional Entitlement, Says Supreme Court’ (25 April 2024) https://theanalysis.org.in/refusal-of-mothers-child-care-leave-violates-constitutional-entitlement-says-supreme-court/ (accessed 28 July 2025)
[8] Lexology, ‘Supreme Court directs Himachal Pradesh Government to reconsider CCL policy for caregivers of children with disabilities’ (April 2024) https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=91b9eaab-6d43-41e7-927e-45a9a177b0b9 (accessed 28 July 2025)
[9] Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (India), s 80
[10] Constitution of India, article 14, 15, 21
