Third‑Child Maternity Leave: A Legal Perspective

Introduction: A Landmark in Reproductive Rights

In a pivotal decision that reinforces the primacy of reproductive autonomy and gender justice, the Supreme Court of India on May 23, 2025, held that maternity leave is a constitutional entitlement, even in cases involving a third child. The ruling in K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu directly challenged restrictive state rules that deny maternity benefits beyond the second child, marking a significant evolution in the interpretation of reproductive rights and employment law in India.

This judgment has far-reaching implications, especially for women in public service, and demands introspection into how reproductive choices intersect with employment protections under the law.

Factual Background: A Public Servant’s Legal Struggle

The petitioner, an English teacher employed by the Tamil Nadu government, had two children from her first marriage, both of whom were in the custody of her former spouse. Following her remarriage in 2018, she conceived a third child and applied for maternity leave between August 2021 and May 2022. Her application was rejected under Fundamental Rule 101(a) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Leave Rules, which restricts maternity leave to women with less than two surviving children.

While a Single Judge of the Madras High Court ruled in her favor, a Division Bench reversed that verdict, compelling her to seek redress before the Supreme Court. The apex court’s decision not only overturned the High Court ruling but also laid down crucial constitutional principles on gender, dignity, and statutory interpretation.

Legal Framework: Maternity Benefits and Constitutional Rights

The Supreme Court examined two key instruments: the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (as amended in 2017), and Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

The Maternity Benefit Act allows 26 weeks of paid leave for the first two children and 12 weeks thereafter but does not disqualify a woman based on the number of children. In contrast, Tamil Nadu’s service rules imposed a stricter limitation, effectively disqualifying women with more than two children from claiming leave altogether. The Court held that this state-level restriction directly contradicted central law and constitutional protections, and therefore could not stand.

The judgment invoked past landmark decisions, including Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) and Devika Biswas v. Union of India (2016), to reaffirm that reproductive rights are a core part of personal liberty under Article 21.

Key Observations by the Court

Justice Abhay S. Oka, writing for the bench, emphasized that maternity leave is not a mere statutory privilege but a constitutional guarantee necessary to preserve a woman’s dignity, health, and autonomy.

The Court specifically critiqued the narrow and mechanical application of the “two-child norm,” noting that the petitioner did not have custody of her first two children. Thus, applying the rule without considering her actual caregiving responsibilities would amount to an arbitrary denial of rights.

Additionally, the bench clarified that state service rules cannot override central legislation, particularly when the central law enshrines broader protections. In case of conflict, the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act prevail.

Implications for Public Policy and Governance

Following this ruling, state governments must urgently revisit their leave rules, especially those that deny maternity benefits based on child count. The judgment serves as a constitutional mandate to align all public service rules with the central Maternity Benefit Act.

It also lays the groundwork for future litigation in similar contexts, such as denial of benefits in the private sector, surrogacy cases, or adoption-related maternity leave, providing a robust precedent that centers the dignity and autonomy of the working woman.

Conclusion

From a legal practitioner’s perspective, K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu is a milestone verdict that rightly interprets maternity leave as a fundamental expression of gender equality and reproductive justice. It reasserts the idea that welfare policies must not penalize women for their familial or reproductive circumstances.

As India continues to modernize its workforce, such rulings ensure that progress is matched with compassionate, inclusive, and rights-driven legal frameworks—a vital step toward a more equitable society.