Authored By: Deeksha Mahara
Institute of Law, Nirma University
Abstract
When life begins in the womb, it is the law’s duty to protect it with empathy, compassion and equality. This article explores the constitutional analysis of maternity benefits, along with a particular focus on the recent Supreme Court judgment’s that laudably recognised it as the part of fundamental rights. This progressive step recognized reproductive autonomy and pre- and post-natal care are central to woman’s right to live with dignity. However, the implementation of the benefits continues to face critical challenges from limited applicability of Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, to women in the informal sector and the lack of procedural clarity. Too often women hesitate to disclose their pregnancy because of the fear of losing job, hiring or promotion. Motherhood is not a breakdown in productivity of women but the transition which is needed to be protected. Therefore, to tackle all these challenges, reality-driven approach is essential not only for the formal sector and established workplace, but also for the informal sector that remains largely unprotected.
Introduction
“I can imagine no heroism greater than motherhood.”
Lance Conrad Pregnancy and childbirth are very significant event marked in a woman’s life, they are not merely biological event but also the transformative phase that reshape women’s life, body, mind and also the society. Soon after the birth of child, women undergo range of changes from physical changes, hormonal fluctuation, to emotional and psychological changes. For some these changes may deepen into psychiatric postpartum depression, which is a concerning issue that impacts significant numbers of mother across the world. What a mother truly needs soon after the birth is the rest, emotional support and acknowledgement of their journey of motherhood.
Amidst of all these changes, expecting a woman to resume her work immediately after childbirth is unrealistic and inhumane. Therefore, maternity rights bridge the gap between motherhood journey and women’s right to work with dignity and security.
In the recent landmark judgement, the Supreme Court has recognized maternity rights as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution[1]. This ruling sets as a significant precedent in prioritizing women’s reproductive health, protecting their dignity and mark the victory of gender equality in workplace.[2]
Tracing the constitutional analysis of maternity rights.
Maternity rights are fundamental human rights that ensure the health, dignity, and employment security of women during and after pregnancy. These rights encompass maternity leave, healthcare access, protection against workplace discrimination, and the right to return to work post-childbirth.[3] Maternity benefits find it root right from Constitution of India. Though the Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention about these benefits but Constitution empowers and protects these benefits under various articles. Women’s motherhood journey is protected through the blend of fundamental right and Directive Principles of State Policy.
Article 14, the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India[4]. The Supreme Court’s decision in Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, marks significant step taken to tackle gender discrimination related to employment. The court struck the regulation related to retirement upon their first pregnancy, as it was violative of air hostesses’ fundamental rights under Article 14[5].
Article 15(3) which states the nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.[6] Therefore, empowering the government to make provision which protect, secure and are of utmost benefits to women, like health care, paid leaves, job security etc.
Article 21, which states the no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty.[7] Indian judiciary is the main catalyst or guardian of women’s right in expanding the protection guaranteed under this article from right to live with dignity to reproductive right and right to health care.
In the case of Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009), SC held that “a women’s right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of “personal liberty” as understood under Article 21[8].
In addition to the fundamental rights, DPSP’s also plays a pivotal role, they serve as the guiding stone for the State, upholding the vision of welfare state. Article 39 of the Indian Constitution sets certain principles of policy to be followed by the State out of which one of the significant principles is that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused.[9] This ensures that working women are not exploited and not working under unfavorable condition during pregnancy or post-delivery. Therefore, offering them the safe environment to work and develop.
Article 42 of Indian constitution is one of the most important articles which directly directs the State to make provision regarding maternity relief and humane work conditions for women.[10] One of the most cardinal legislations so made was Maternity Benefits Act, 1961[11]. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Female Workers (Muster Roll) And Amr, court observed “The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 aims to provide all these facilities to a working woman in a dignified manner so that she may overcome the state of motherhood honorably, peaceably, undeterred by the fear of being victimized for forced absence during the pre- or post-natal period”[12]. The Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 currently provides 26 weeks of paid leave for the first two children and 12 weeks thereafter.[13]
Other welfare scheme like Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandhana Yojna made, so that the woman can take adequate rest before and after delivery of the child.[14]
Landmark Verdict: Maternity Leave is a Necessity, not a Privilege.
A significant development in maternity provision came through the case of K. Umadevi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court unequivocally declared that ‘leave and benefit due to maternity situation of a woman’ are fundamental rights.[15] A brief understanding of the facts of the case are very essentials to understand constitutional implications of the judgment.
Umadevi, appellant, is an English teacher in the government school of Tamil Nadu. Appellant got married and two children were born out of the first wedlock. The marriage was legally dissolved in 2017 and children are in the custody of the former husband. Later, she entered into second marriage. Due to conceivement from her second marriage, appellant applied for grant of maternity leave to the authorities.[16] However, her application was rejected by the authorities on the ground that, Fundamental Rule (FR) 101(a) is applicable to state government employees of Tamil Nadu, maternity leave is available to women state government employees having less than two surviving children. There is no provision for grant of maternity leave for the third child.[17]
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, interpreted the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, and clarified the meaning of “two surviving children”, must mean children are in lawful custody of the mother. In this case, appellant was not having the custody of children born from the first wedlock. Therefore, the woman government employee seeking maternity benefit should have custody of the children.[18] The court held that reproductive rights, including maternity benefits, falls within the ambit of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Population control policies and reproductive rights must be balanced with compassion and constitutional safeguards[19].
Therefore, court granted relief to the appellant and directed Tamil Nadu government to grant the maternity benefit to appellant within two months from date of order, emphasizing that State is obliged to protect individuals from arbitrary restriction which are violative of their fundamental rights.[20]
Supreme court’s decision directly upholds the core value of dignity, liberty, and equality of Indian Constitution. Thus, highlighting the idea that maternity leaves must not treated as mere perk or concession to women’s but a biological and constitutional necessity and right. Supreme court rejected not only the numerical interpretation but also focused on the custody of children at the time of availing the maternity benefits and on the reproductive autonomy. It sends a powerful message that workplace policies and government rules cannot undermine the dignity and equality of women, especially when it comes to motherhood.[21] By doing so, Supreme court has set a precedent for future reference in the cases concerning curtailment or denial of women’s maternity benefits. Indian judiciary has played a very transformative and progressive role in expanding and protecting the maternity rights, upholding the principle of justice, equality and personal liberty. The judiciary as actively played its role as guardian not only protecting the rights but also in ensuring that no policies or governmental regulation undermine the purpose of maternity protection. When the policies and laws are made with empathy and care, they protect the rights along with it, it fosters the trust of people in laws, government and judiciary, creating more just and equitable society.
Shortcomings
Interpretation of law often goes beyond the text. While deciding the case of K. Umadevi v. State of Tamil Nadu, the court also took into consideration the statutory provision, the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017. The judgment, while progressive, the ruling reflects certain limitations. Firstly, the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, however provides the paid leave of only 12 weeks for the third child[22], which is substantially insufficient for the physical and psychological recovery not only for the mother but also for the new born child, and frequently pressurizes the women to resume their professional work role, without proper postnatal care and support. This prescribed limit has not only failed as the holistic care system but also fails to comply with the international standard set by the International Labour Organization. The Convention No. 183 of ILO Maternity Protection Convention, 2000 states that maternity leave should not be less than 14 weeks.[23]
All postpartum women suffer from a mild form of emotional disturbance known as “maternity blues”.[24] The “maternity blues” are characterized by headachy, cheerful, emotional, nervous, confused, and depressed times intermingled with intervals of mild sadness[25]. If these maternity blues are not acknowledged, it can escalate to postpartum depression, impacting not just mother’s mental health but also the bond with the new born.
Secondly, the informal sector, which employs significant portion of women, remains largely outside the scope of Maternity Benefit Act. Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, is an Act to regulate the employment of women in certain establishments[26] and these establishment includes factories, mines, plantations, shops, and other establishments excluding large section of women worker engaged in agricultural laborers, construction site helpers, street vendors, and gig-based workers. The main challenge lies, in the effective implementation of the judgement. Judgment, first of all, primarily applies to government employees, it remains unclear whether the protection so stated in the judgement extends to private workers or informal sector workers. Field experiences in enforcement of maternity laws reveal that several social-factors like stigma, taboo, fear, insecurity or illiteracy impede women workers from placing claims for maternity benefits. [27] Thirdly, no such guidelines, procedure or rules are mentioned in the judgement for the effective implementation of the judgement, in case of infringement of maternity rights whether a woman can directly approach to Supreme Court or High Court, within the scope of writ jurisdiction.[28] Without proper guidelines or action, the spirit of the judgment may remain confined to the paper and may fail to achieve its intended purpose of equality, freedom and justice.
Conclusion
The recognition of maternity benefits as a fundamental right is the milestone in achieving constitutional values. The recent judgement not only interpreted the maternity rights in light of Article 21 of Indian Constitution but also described the reproductive rights which includes right to health, right to make a choice regarding sterilization and right to make all the decision related to reproductive autonomy without any fear or coercion. This moment offers a powerful opportunity to women to reclaim their reproductive autonomy. The Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, though a vital statute but largely it remains confined to formal sector and the establishment. To ensure that the judgement achieve its goal, ground-level empathetic implementation and mechanism is needed including awareness programs and making continuous efforts to make these rights more centered to lived realities of women addressing informal work conditions, social stigma and administrative barriers. Only then can it be said that the constitutional promise made to each and every mother has been truly fulfilled.
Reference(S):
[1] Constitution of India 1950, art 21.
[2] K Umadevi v State of Tamil Nadu [2025] SCC OnLine SC 1369 (SC).
[3] Neeraj Kumar and Pranav Ranga, ‘Maternity Rights of Women: A Judicial Perspective’ (2025) Metallurgical and Materials Engineering 99 https://doi.org/10.63278/mme.vi.1795.
[4] Constitution of India 1950, art 14.
[5] Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, (1981) 4 SCC 335.
[6] Constitution of India 1950, art 15(3).
[7] Constitution of India 1950, art 21.
[8] Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn., (2009) 9 SCC 1.
[9] Constitution of India 1950, art 39.
[10] Constitution of India 1950, art 42.
[11]Maternity Benefits Act, 1961.
[12] Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Female Workers (Muster Roll) And Amr, AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 1274.
[13] Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act 2017 (India).
[14] Government of NCT of Delhi, Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY) (Department of Women and Child Development, Delhi) https://wcd.delhi.gov.in/wcd/pradhan-mantri-matru-vandana-yojana-pmmvy.
[15] Rohit Mani Tiwari, ‘SC’s ruling on maternity benefit as fundamental rights opens doors, but procedural questions demand clarity’ (The Leaflet, 25 June 2025) https://theleaflet.in/labour-law/scs-ruling-on-maternity-benefit-as-fundamental-rights-opens-doors-but-procedural-questions-demand-clarity.
[16] K Umadevi v State of Tamil Nadu [2025] SCC OnLine SC 1369 (SC).
[17] ibid
[18] ibid
[19] Supreme Court Declares Maternity Leave a Constitutional Right—Even for Third Child, Marking Landmark Win for Women’s Rights, The Logical Indian (23 May 2025) https://thelogicalindian.com/supreme-court-declares-maternity-leave-a-constitutional-right-even-for-third-child-marking-landmark-win-for-womens-rights/.
[20] ibid
[21] Supreme Court Declares Maternity Leave a Constitutional Right—Even for Third Child, Marking Landmark Win for Women’s Rights, The Logical Indian (23 May 2025) https://thelogicalindian.com/supreme-court-declares-maternity-leave-a-constitutional-right-even-for-third-child-marking-landmark-win-for-womens-rights/.
[22] Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act 2017 (India).
[23] International Labour Organization, Convention concerning the revision of the Maternity Protection Convention (Revised), 1952 (No 183) (NORMLEX) https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C183.
[24] Ankita Kumar Gupta, ‘Post Partum Depression in Indian Mothers: A Reality’ (2023–24) 11 CNLU LJ 90.
[25] ibid
[26] Press Information Bureau, Maternity leave is a constitutional right, even for third child, rules Supreme Court (PIB, 24 May 2025) https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2002647.
[27] Rohit Mani Tiwari, ‘SC’s ruling on maternity benefit as fundamental rights opens doors, but procedural questions demand clarity’ (The Leaflet, 25 June 2025) https://theleaflet.in/labour-law/scs-ruling-on-maternity-benefit-as-fundamental-rights-opens-doors-but-procedural-questions-demand-clarity.
[28] ibid
