INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court, in K. Umadevi’s case, noted, “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 also includes the right to health.”[1] However, the Court’s approach to interpreting maternity rights through the lens of the Right to Life under Article 21[2] has created an important precedent that may influence future reproductive rights cases across India and has opened discussions about the intersection of reproductive health and constitutional protections.
While Indian courts have primarily addressed reproductive rights as a matter of “life and personal liberty,” they have been failing to robustly address it as an issue of “equality and non-discrimination”[3]. This blog aims to explore the potential implications of the K. Umadevi judgment, examining how its reasoning might influence future cases and how this judicial approach can shape the evolution of reproductive rights jurisprudence in India.
THE K. UMADEVI CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION CASE
In the recent landmark K. Umadevi v. State of Tamil Nadu case[4], the appellant had applied for maternity leave for her third child, but her first with her second husband. However, the leave was denied on the grounds of Fundamental Rule 101(a) of Tamil Nadu[5] stating that maternity leave is only available to women state government employees with less than two surviving children. There is no provision for the grant of maternity leave for the third child on account of the appellant’s re-marriage.
The Supreme Court, taking into account the Maternity Benefit Act 2017[6], various international conventions, and constitutional provisions, with a special emphasis on Article 21, held that the appellant should be granted maternity leave as requested. Expanding on the judgments given in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration[7] and Devika Biswas v. Union of India[8], where reproductive rights and reproductive health were established within the ambit of personal liberty, that is, Article 21[9], the Supreme Court also observed that the MB Act, being a beneficial legislation, ‘has to be construed with a purpose-oriented approach and must receive a liberal construction to promote its objectives’, even where it is not applicable, such as in cases of state government employees, guidance should be sought from it.
Maternity leave, an important reproductive right, has hence been established as an undeniable constitutional right under Article 21. However, without defined boundaries, the Court has inadvertently created a massive legal void. Every existing law touching reproductive choices now faces potential constitutional challenges. The judgment has opened up avenues in all spheres of reproductive rights, most of which have never been delved into before, and creates prospects for a positive development of ever-essential reproductive rights.
THE IMMEDIATE SPILLOVER OF FUTURE CASES
- PATERNITY LEAVE RIGHTS
Although section 43A of Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972[10] contains provisions for paternity leave to male government servants, which allows a 15-day leave period during their wife’s confinement for childbirth, either up to 15 days before or within six months after the delivery, but, India lacks a central statute for paternity leave[11] unlike the Maternity Benefit Act of 1961. There is also no legal provision that mandates the private sector to provide paternity leave to its employees[12], although some companies can voluntarily incorporate it in their HR policies.
Hence, it could be argued that if the ‘Right to Reproductive Dignity’ under Article 21, as established in the Umadevi case, applies to mothers, it should logically extend to fathers as well. In the absence of a suitable paternity law, this void could potentially result in constitutional challenges asserting breaches of Article 21 (Right to parental dignity) and the Right to Equality under Article 14[13] (gender discrimination in parental rights).
- ORGANISED VS. UNORGANISED SECTOR DISPARITY
Almost 97% of the women’s workforce in India is involved in the unorganised sectors[14]. Most women work as wage employees or under contract in extremely abusive working circumstances. Even the scope of labour laws does not recognise them.[15] Despite its legislative framework, the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act of 2008[16] has failed to deliver meaningful, practical benefits to unorganised workers regarding maternity or any other social security benefits. This creates a gap where millions of women face violations of both their Right to Equality under Article 14 and their newly recognised ‘reproductive dignity’ under Article 21, creating a constitutional crisis.
- WORKPLACE PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION
While the Maternity Benefit Act provides certain protections to pregnant employees, including payment of maternity benefits, leave with wages for tubectomy, pregnancy, miscarriage or abortion, no deduction of wages or dismissal, pregnant mothers’ employment must be guaranteed better protections. Women must be able to work without worrying that their pregnancy could hinder their ambitions. The Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary must ensure that these statutory benefits now act as constitutional guarantees and are strengthened. Pregnant women and new mothers often face internal discrimination where they are not considered efficient or considered for promotions. New mothers applying for jobs are often rejected because they are not able to work correctly due to their status as mothers. Such practices must be fought against, particularly in light of the constitutionalisation of reproductive rights.
- BROADENED CHILDCARE SUPPORT SYSTEMS
Article 25(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[17] recognises that motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. This principle acknowledges State intervention and support for maternity-related entitlements. Maternity leave without having access to childcare assistance is akin to granting an individual the opportunity for education while failing to provide any schools. The Supreme Court’s recognition of ‘reproductive dignity’ under Article 21 creates a constitutional duty for the State to ensure that related statutory benefits serve this dignity rather than undermining it through inadequate implementation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Given these constitutional implications and the gaps found, several focused reforms are necessary to fully achieve the K. Umadevi precedent’s potential.
- Central Legislation for Reproductive Rights – The government must aim at codification of a comprehensive rights legislation incorporating both maternity and paternity rights aspects in a single code to bridge the inequality gap that currently exists, where male employees are entitled to 15 days of leave,whiles women are entitled to six months’ leave. Such steps would also promote workplace gender equality.
- Equal Rights, Unequal Access – Current laws governing maternity rights, such as the Maternity Benefit Act 2017[18], or the Social Security Code 2020[19], do not acknowledge the workers in the unorganised sector, despite them constituting the central portion. Hence, it becomes imperative to make them visible either by incorporating them into the existing laws governing maternity rights for women or by formulating organised sectors for a sense of equality and non – discrimination.
- Better Protections Against Pregnancy Discrimination – The provisions of the MB Act, 2017, must be expanded to ensure complete protection for new and expectant mothers and guarantee their constitutional rights. Guidance can be sought from the American Pregnancy Discrimination Act[20] to create in-depth and exhaustive legislation aligning with the implications of the judgment.
- Inclusion for Constitutional Compliance– The government must incorporate practical and supportive infrastructural changes for post-return working women in all sectors. Along with the post leave ‘Work from Home’ provision for women in the organised sector, the government must try to expand it further to include the unorganised sector as well. The institutions should also advocate for flexible work arrangements in the first 6-12 months post-maternity leave, such as flexible working hours for the first 3 months of childbirth and part-time job transitions. Another efficient initiative could be the choice to transfer unused maternity leave days in the future for emergency situations over discretion as part of supportive changes toward constitutional compliance.
- Awareness Campaigns – Women from all walks of society, especially those from rural India and those working in the unorganised sectors, must be made aware of their rights, mainly brought in by the landmark case, and should be informed on how to access and utilise their rights to fight against any discrimination they might face.
CONCLUSION
The K. Umadevi judgment underscores maternity leave as a core, undeniable reproductive right. It aims to preserve social justice by enabling women to fulfil their multiple responsibilities as mothers and professionals and guaranteeing that they can live independent, respectable lives. The Supreme Court, while regarding the Maternity Benefit Act as beneficial legislation, has favoured its purposive and liberal interpretation. In line with such an interpretation, reform must be brought in areas like paternity leave rights, workplace discrimination, and the unorganised sector. However, this reform would need precise legislative action, executive implementation, and awareness to align with the constitutional foundation provided by this judicial precedent and tackle the gaps afflicting India’s reproductive rights framework. In essence, the judgment is a step in a positive direction and opens doors for multiple prospects, but these prospects have to be handled delicately and with the proper means.
Author(s) Name: Shivangi Raj Verma & Ishita Sahai (Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University & Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University)
References:
[1] Namrata Banerjee, “No Cap On Number Of Children To Claim Maternity Leave Benefit: Supreme Court” (Verdictum, 26 May 2025) <https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/k-umadevi-v-government-of-tamil-nadu-maternity-leave-third-child-1578777> accessed 12 June 2025.
[2] The Constitution of India 1950, art 21.
[3] Gauri Pillai, “India’s Push-and-Pull on Reproductive Rights” (Verfassungsblog, 17 April 2024) <https://verfassungsblog.de/indias-push-and-pull-on-reproductive-rights/> accessed 11 June 2025.
[4] K. Umadevi v State of Tamil Nadu, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1204.
[5] The Fundamental Rules of The Tamil Nadu Government 2017, s 101(a).
[6] Maternity Benefit Act 2017.
[7] Suchita Srivastava v Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1.
[8] Devika Biswas v Union of India, (2016) 10 SCC 726.
[9] Ibid at 2.
[10] Central Services (Leave) Rules 1972, sec 43A.
[11] “Paternity Leave” (Keka) <https://www.keka.com/glossary/paternity-leave> accessed 13 June 2025.
[12] Ministry of Labour and Employment, “Applicability of Paternity Leave in Private Sector” <https://sansad.in/getFile/annex/256/AU1857.pdf?source=pqars> accessed 13 June 2025.
[13] The Constitution of India 1950, art 14.
[14] Satyanshu Shukla, ‘Women in the Unorganised Sectors in India’ (Khurana & Khurana, 21 November 2024) <https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2024/11/21/women-in-the-unorganised-sectors-in-india/> accessed 12 June 2025.
[15] I. Muralitharam, “Right of Maternity Benefits as a Fundamental Right An Analysis” (HEINONLINE, 2022-2023) <https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/injlolw9&i=3010> accessed on 11 June 2025.
[16] The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act 2008.
[17] Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, art 25(2).
[18] Ibid, at 6.
[19] Code on Social Security 2020.
[20] Pregnancy Discrimination Act 1978.
