Last month, the Supreme Court, in K Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu, broadened the interpretation of Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rule (FR) 101(a), which had previously denied paid maternity leave to female government servants with two or more surviving children. The court held that a woman could not be denied maternity leave for her third biological child, harmonising the state rule with the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (MBA) — a central statute that places no numerical ceiling on maternity benefits. In reaching this conclusion, the court anchored its reasoning in Article 21 of the Constitution, deepening the jurisprudence that treats reproductive choice as a facet of personal liberty.

The judgment leans heavily on the line of cases beginning with Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn, in which the apex court first declared reproductive choice a facet of liberty under Article 21. In X v. Principal Secretary, the corollary of that principle was iterated by the court in concrete terms: “Deprivation of access to reproductive healthcare or emotional and physical well-being injures the dignity of women.”

Crucially, in Umadevi, the court adopted a purposive interpretative approach. It treated the MBA as laying down the broader principles of maternity benefits, reasoning that any narrower state rule must be read in light of that........

© hindustantimes