Balance reproductive choices with population policy push

Hindustan Times

16-06-2025

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 central statute and the Constitution. Several contextual factors reinforced the outcome. First, much like the facts in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, the pregnancy in question in Umadevi was the appellant's first biological pregnancy during her government service. Second, the appellant did not have custody of her two children from a previous marriage, making the present pregnancy particularly meaningful. These facts, the court implied, underscored the unfairness of penalising her for the mere fact that she was now carrying a third child. Women cannot be punished for their reproductive choices; the purpose of maternity benefits is to honour them both as mothers and as workers.
The judgment also grappled with the two-child norm often espoused in population-control policy. Rather than dismiss the state's demographic concerns outright, the court insisted that those aims 'must be harmonised in a purposive and rational manner' with constitutional guarantees. Population policy and maternity protection, it concluded, are not mutually exclusive objectives. Thus, it can be inferred that the burden of controlling population must not fall on child-bearing women by stripping them of fundamental employment protections.
Tamil Nadu's two-child ceiling is hardly unique. Service rules around the country have similar restrictions. Uttarakhand offers a vivid illustration of the constitutional confusion that can follow. In 2018, a single-judge bench of the Uttarakhand High Court (HC), in Urmila Masih v. State of Uttarakhand, struck down the second proviso to FR 153, which barred maternity leave on a third pregnancy. Relying on Section 27 of the MBA and Article 42's mandate for 'just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief,' the single-judge bench declared the proviso unconstitutional.
The immediate imperative is for state governments to audit and reconsider all service rules that cap maternity benefits at two children. Concurrently, all courts must apply Umadevi consistently, recognising that reproductive autonomy and access to maternal health care are now woven into the constitutional fabric.
Jwalika Balaji is research fellow (research director's office), Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. The views expressed are personal.