Court – Supreme Court of India
Citation – civil appeal no. 5308 of 2022
Date of judgement – 16 August, 2022
Bench – A. S. Bopanna and Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud
Facts Of The Case
- Deepika Singh, the appellant, was working at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) in Chandigarh on the post of nurse from the date of her joining on 25 November 2005. She married Amar Singh on 18 February 2014, he was a widower whose wife passed away on 16 February 2013, leaving behind two children – a boy and a girl.
- The appellant filed an application on 4 May 2015 to include her stepchildren’s names in her official service record. She gave birth to her first biological child on 4 June 2019. Subsequently, on 6 June 2019, she applied for maternity leave under Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services ( leave ) Rules, 1972, from 27 June 2019 to 23 December 2019.[1]
- PGIMER authorities requested clarification regarding her having two children from her spouse’s former marriage, for which she had already taken child care leave. She responded on 29 July 2019.
- However, PGIMER authorities rejected her maternity leave application citing that the Rules of 1972 do not permit child care leave for more than two children. Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in Chandigarh.
- On 29 January 2021, the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed her OA, upholding the decision due to her prior maternity leave as per Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (leave) Rules, 1972. The appellant then appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana via a writ petition under Article 226,[2] challenging the decision of Central Administrative Tribunal.[3]
- However, on 16 March 2021 her writ petition was also dismissed by the High Court, which rules that as per Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (leave) Rules, 1972, a woman can only receive leave for child care for up to two years, i.e., 730 days, for the rearing and care of her child, including education, sickness, etc., which she had already utilized for her two children.
- Having exhausted all other directions, the appellant then moved to the Supreme Court via a writ petition under Article 32[4], challenging the decisions of both Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court.
Issues Raised
- Whether a woman be allowed to take child care leave if she has already availed maternity leave for up to two children?
- Whether the maternity leave and child care leave are two distinct entitlements?
Contention
Arguments From Appellant’s Side
- Mr.Akshay Verma, the learned counsel from the appellant’s side, argued that his client is seeking maternity leave for her first biological child, and the fact that she has two surviving children from her spouse’s former marriage does not disentitle his client under Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (leave) Rules, 1972.
- The appellant’s counsel also argued that the leave taken by his client for her stepchildren was child care leave, not maternity leave.[5]
Arguments From Respondent’s Side
- Mr.Sudarshan Rajan, the learned counsel for the respondent, argued that the appellant had already taken the benefit of child care leave for her two children from her spouse’s former marriage, therefore she is not entitled to take the benefits of maternity leave for her own Biological child under Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (leave) Rules, 1972.
Judgement
The Supreme Court emphasizes on the purposive construction of the beneficial legislation. Whenever courts face-off with such situations where the legislation is for a beneficial purpose, the courts should make attempts to give effect to the purpose of the relevant provision rather than to prevent it’s application. In various precedent cases, courts have interpreted beneficial legislation to put into effect the objective of the legislation please
Court distinguises between the child care leave and maternity leave. The Court observed that maternity leave is given to a woman when she is about to give birth, but child care leave under Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (leave) Rules of 1972 can be availed at any point in time whenever a child requires her mother’s care, be it for education, sickness, etc.
The appellant having already taken child care leave for her non- biological children is not a justified ground for disentitling her from maternity leave for her biological child. This law is made to provide job security to women’s when they are handling their career and motherhood together.
The Supreme Court linked these facts with the present case and observed that the Central Civil Services (leave) Rules,1972, is a beneficial legislation that should be interpreted according to the objective behind the formation of this law.
The Supreme Court allowed the maternity leave of the appellant and held the contention of the respondent contrary to the Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (leave) Rules of 1972 and they set aside the judgement of Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court and dismissed the other applications if any present.
- Ratio decidendi
Chandrachud J. compared the Central Civil Services (leave) Rules,1972, with the Maternity benefit act, 1961. He cited the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll),[6] in which a two- judge bench consisting of S. Saghir Ahmad, J., and D. P. Wadhwa, J., of this court connected the right to maternity leave with Articles 14, 15, 39, 42 and 43 of the Indian Constitution. They emphasizes on the Article 15 (3)[7] of the Indian Constitution, which provides Constitutional right and protection to women, including Article 21[8] of the Indian Constitution, “which provides a person’s right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity”; Article 42,[9] which places a duty on the state “to make provisions for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief”. It also connected to Article 25(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Right (UDHR) and Article 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women(CEFDAW), of which India is a member.
- Obiter dicta
The Supreme Court connected their views with the present case, which makes it more than an obiter dicta. The Supreme Court mentioned the atypical family. Deepika Singh was not only the mother of her own Biological child but also of her stepchildren. The court stated that a family is more than a single unchanging unit with a mother and a father and their children since the mother and father may remain unchanged over time.
The Court connected the present case with their general view, making it somewhat binding on the courts; therefore, it is a Judicial dicta instead of obiter dicta. According to the Supreme Court, single – parent families, unmarried partnership, and queer relationships are also entitled to be protected under the law.
Present Status In India
Maternity leave and Child care leave were both considered as one leave before this judgement of Supreme Court, but after this case, it clarified that they are separate leaves. A woman is entitled to both leaves separately, as held in Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himanchal Pradesh.[10]
Conclusion
A working woman is not only performing her one part that is a career but also the other part that is her womanhood, a role created by the society where she plays the role of a mother, wife, daughter -in-law, etc. Our society does not accept a woman when she rejects to play her role of womanhood. Even today society is partial towards women. Still, a woman is demanded in her house for her child care and other household chores, then after it, other things comes into play. A woman is made to choose between her motherhood and career, and by the force of society, she chooses motherhood in place of her career. Therefore, many laws are coming to secure the rights of women and empower them so that they can perform both duties.
Central Civil Services Leave Rules, 1972, is one of them, which provides a rule for a woman when she takes leave for her child care and at the time of the birth of the child. This is provided under Rule 43 of the rules of 1972, which was not properly interpreted by the CAT and the High Court in this case. The Supreme Court correctly rectified the CAT and High Court. The Supreme Court via purposive construction enlarges the scope of beneficial legislations. A woman cannot be forced to choose between her career and motherhood is the objective of this law that should be prevented, and they also widen it’s scope by increasing single parents, unmarried partnerships, and queer relationships.
[1] Indian kanoon, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26134676/&ved=2ahUKEwjEpvvVrPKMAxXY7jgGHZUCDrIQFnoECD8QAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw3k-FjV6x81UhCIpxw405iS ( last visited Apr. 25, 2025).
[2] INDIA CONST. Art.226.
[3] SCCOnline, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/11/24/deepika-singh-v-central-administrative-tribunal-path-shone-by-the-supreme-court/&ved=2ahUKEwjEpvvVrPKMAxXY7jgGHZUCDrIQFnoECEQQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw2SVJv-PBoNMJnHzvC7HQWy (last visited Apr. 25, 2025).
[4] INDIA CONST. Art.32.
[5] Indian journal of legal review, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://ijlr.iledu.in/case-comment-deepika-singh-v-central-administrative-tribunal/&ved=2ahUKEwi00qKXtfKMAxXzSWwGHe0SLeEQFnoFCJcBEAE&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw1Y_8Z_Itap5tAB5NHVp7d0 (last visited Apr. 25, 2025).
[6] AIR 2000 SC 1274.
[7] INDIA CONST. Art.15, cl. 3.
[8] INDIA CONST. Art.21.
[9] INDIA CONST. Art. 42.
[10] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 653.
Author: Richa Pathak is a B.A.LL.B(Hons) student at S.S. Khanna Girls’ Degree College (Constituent of University of Allahabad)
