SC’s ruling on maternity benefit as fundamental rights opens doors, but procedural questions demand clarity
Last month the Supreme Court laudably recognised that leave and benefit due to maternity formed a part of the fundamental rights, aligned to international human rights standards. But questions on jurisdiction and position of women in informal economy remain crucially unanswered.
Published on: 25 June 2025, 02:33 pm
ON MAY 23, WHILE DELIVERING A HISTORIC JUDGEMENT in K Umadevi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025), the Supreme Court unequivocally declared that ‘leave and benefit due to maternity situation of a woman’ are fundamental rights. The Court linked several previous cases, international conventions, treaties, and prevalent socio-economic reality of the nation to grant ‘maternity leave as fundamental right under Art.21’. In Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009), it was noted that women’s ‘reproductive rights’ was an integral part of personal liberty and hence fell within the ambit of Article 21.
In Umadevi, the Court added that ‘international conventions’, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (‘UNDHR’), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (‘CEDAW’), the International Covenant on SEC Rights, and ILO basic framework on ‘Maternity Protection’ (2000) provide for a ‘broad spectrum of reproductive rights includes maternity benefits.’ As such, maternity leaves were integral to maternity benefit and hence formed an essential part of personal liberty under Art.21
The Court enunciated that the global community “recognise maternity rights are at the intersection of several human rights and protected under human rights laws as well.” In one stroke of the pen, the Court conferred status of fundamental right to maternity rights and benefits. It is an exquisitely written judgment. The assured and protected maternity sabbath is not merely a guarantee of constitutionalism but a mandate of a civilised society under international framework.
In one stroke of the pen, the Court conferred status of fundamental right to maternity rights and benefits.
The most salient feature of the judgment is that the Court reminds the State its commitment to these international laws under Article 51(c) of the Constitution, especially regarding ILO’s framework (2000) on ‘maternity protection, right to proceed to freely, with dignity and assurance that right to return to same role, status and entitlements are in safe hands of employers and State’. The Court lauded the enactment of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (‘MB Act’) and urged the world of work to look for guidance under its provisions as a comprehensive legal framework. It does not bar any worker who is a mother from availing maternity benefits and leaves. The Court hailed the MB Act as ‘North Star’ as “it affords women much flexibility and enable to live an autonomous life as worker and mother.”
Now that maternity benefits have been recognised as a fundamental right, it shall dawn a new era in constellations of fundamental rights. The employers cannot evade or hide behind the ambiguity of maternity laws or resource crunch or simple ignorance.
The questions that emerge
There is also a procedural question involved in this new fundamental right of maternity benefit: Whether an aggrieved woman can directly approach directly either the Supreme Court or the High Court under the writ jurisdiction of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, overriding the relief structure of the MB Act?
Similarly, another question that emerges is: whether, after the judicial acceptance of maternity right as a ‘human right’, the NHRC/SHRC shall exercise jurisdiction on these matters directly?