Latest news with #MaternityBenefitActof1961
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Maternity benefits integral to right to life, health and equality
— Rituparna Patgiri In a recent judgment on May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court set aside a Madras High Court order that had denied maternity leave to a government school teacher for the birth of her third child. The Court ruled that maternity leave is part of a woman's reproductive rights and requires constitutional protection. This case once again highlights how maternity benefits are integrally connected to notions of social justice and inclusion. Historically, the provision of paid maternity leave is connected to the idea of the welfare state from the 1880s. It emerged as an outcome as well as a cause of women's influence in policy making. Maternity benefits were first granted in welfare states such as Bismarckian Germany and France to deal with concerns about depopulation and maternal and infant health problems. This helped incorporate more and more women into the state apparatus as well as workforce. In 1919, the newly formed International Labour Organisation (ILO) adopted the Maternity Protection Convention. It called for 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, free medical care during and after pregnancy, job guarantees upon return to work and periodic breaks for nursing. Today, almost all countries have adopted this convention in some or the other form. These gains in terms of reproductive justice are the result of women's activism and push for social justice. Historically, the rights of working women were usually overlooked in policy priorities. In the context of India, the history of women's reproductive rights and freedom dates back to the pre-independence period. The Maternity Benefit Act – drafted by B. R. Ambedkar, N. M. Joshi and M. K. Dixit – was introduced in the Bombay Legislative Council in 1929. This was in response to the presence of a sizable number of women workers in Mumbai's textile industry, who needed better medical care. Mill owners were not happy because they felt that the burden of taking care of women's maternal care was unfairly placed on them. There was resistance to hiring women. Nonetheless, several provincial maternity benefit acts were passed in Madras (1934), Uttar Pradesh (1938), West Bengal (1939) and Assam (1944). In the 1940s-50s, Ambedkar pushed for the codification and unification of labour laws, including maternity protection. In post-independence India, the Maternity Benefit Act was enacted in 1961. It regulated the employment of women in various sectors (including government agencies, private corporations and factories, mines, plantations, shops and establishments with ten or more employees) before and after childbirth, and provided maternity benefits. The Act granted benefits such as 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, no dismissal during maternity leave, no arduous work during pregnancy and nursing breaks after childbirth. The Maternity Benefit Act of 1961 was amended in 2017. This act extended maternity leave to 26 weeks, facilitated the establishment of childcare facilities like creches in workplaces with 50 or more employees, and granted mothers the right to visit these creches during the day. It also required employers to inform women of the maternity leave provisions at the time of joining. These provisions were mandated by the 2000 ILO Maternity Benefit Convention. However, some countries have also introduced paid parental or family leave policies. It extends the idea of paid maternity leave to make workplaces more gender inclusive. In 1974, Sweden became the first country to introduce parental leave – available to both parents – as a gender neutral policy. It went beyond the idea of the traditional notion that caregiving is solely a woman's responsibility. Some countries in Northern Europe – such as Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland – as well as other Eastern European nations like Estonia, Latvia, and Ukraine, provide one year of parental or family leave. There are only eight countries in the world (Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Suriname, Tonga and the United States of America) that do not guarantee paid family leave at the national level for either men or women. In addition, the issue of paid maternity leave has constantly ignited debates about whether the responsibility to pay for the leave period lies with the state or the employer. In the absence of consensus, women continue to bear the brunt and face discrimination in both recruitment and promotion in workplaces. This is reflected in low female labour force participation, which stood at 37 per cent according to Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), 2022–23). Moreover, the India Discrimination Report 2022 by Oxfam India suggests that gender discrimination is the reason for 98 per cent of the employment gap between males and females. Employers are often prejudiced against women because of their caregiving and household responsibilities. Although the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 was a progressive step, its implementation remained sketchy. It applies only to the formal sector where less than 10 per cent of Indian women are employed. Awareness about its provisions is also low, and employers often fail to comply, particularly with requirements such as creche facilities. Moreover, while work from home is permitted by law after the maternity period depending on the nature of the work, it is often left to employers' discretion. As such, women are dependent on the employers' for availing their legal rights. Also Read | Women in judiciary: A mountain to climb It may be argued that there is a need to extend the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act to the informal sector, where the majority of Indian women, especially from marginalised sections, are employed. Women in informal sectors like domestic work, agriculture, construction sites, street vending, etc. also require protection of their reproductive rights in their workplaces. The private sector too needs to be made more compliant in implementing the act. There have also been demands that maternity benefits should be granted to contractual employees in addition to permanent ones. In 2023, the Delhi High Court noted that the denial of maternity benefits is inhumane and violates constitutional rights. This was in response to the University of Delhi's arbitrary termination of the services of a contractual employee while she was on maternity leave. As more and more jobs are privatised and contractualised, extending the act to both the private sector and contractual employees has become imperative. While many countries have moved towards a more progressive parental or family leave policy, India does not yet have a comprehensive family or paternity leave law in place. Fathers do not get paternity leaves, which not only limits their ability to share caregiving responsibilities but also reinforces traditional gender roles that are biologically essentialist. In this context, better implementation of the existing maternity leave policy, alongside a discussion over a comprehensive family leave policy, becomes important. After all, maternity benefits are an integral part of the right to life, the right to health and the right to equality making it a question of women's inclusion, social justice and constitutional protection of their rights. How has the evolution of maternity benefit policies in India reflected broader shifts in the understanding of women's reproductive rights and social justice? Despite the existence of the Maternity Benefit Act (2017), why does the implementation gap persist, especially in the private and informal sectors? What are the implications of excluding informal sector and contractual women workers from maternity benefits, both socially and economically? Do you think better maternity and family leave policies will help increase female labour force participation and reduce the gender employment gap? How does the legal and policy framework for maternity benefits in India compare with global best practices, particularly in the Global North? (Rituparna Patgiri is an Assistant Professor at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Guwahati.) Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
Mint
09-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
Will scrapped diversity policies in the US have ripple effects in India?
On Donald Trump's first day in office as the 47th President of the United States, executive orders were passed condemning 'diversity, equity and inclusion' (DEI) policies in the corporate sphere. These deemed DEI initiatives a 'radical waste," calling them discriminatory. What has followed is a trend of corporate rollbacks of DEI policies, with major tech giants such as Meta, Amazon and Google either quashing or restructuring them to better suit the political climate. One of the notable consequences of the Trump administration's diversity probe has been the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) increasing scrutiny of major US law firms, pressuring them to disclose details about their clients' diversity initiatives. Also Read: Caution: Attacks on DEI in the US threaten to cement glass ceilings This includes information on law firms' staffing based on the DEI agendas of their clients and any incentives received for meeting such goals. The move has invited strong resistance amid concerns over client confidentiality, executive overreach and its chilling effect on diversity efforts. Given the influence of American multinational corporations and legal practices, this trend may extend beyond the US, potentially impacting corporate policies in India too. India and DEI laws: DEI in the corporate sphere has been recognized as a framework designed to foster a workplace that reflects the diverse social fabric of society—one that is inclusive, equitable and supportive of an individual's social identities, including race, age, caste, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation and physical ability. In India, the very text of our Constitution includes DEI principles by way of fundamental rights, with Article 15 prohibiting discrimination based on religion, caste, gender or ethnicity and Article 16 guaranteeing the right to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Further, Article 14 provides for equality before law, allowing the state to reasonably classify and grant protection to a specific group of individuals. While the power granted to the government under the Constitution to create job opportunities and implement reservations is limited to public employment, various statutes have extended their applicability to private employers, pushing them to incorporate DEI practices. Also Read: DEI defence: How to promote diversity and prevent a backlash Statutes such as the Maternity Benefit Act of 1961, Equal Remuneration Act of 1976, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016, Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act of 2019 and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013 mandatorily apply to private employers, requiring them to implement certain policies and make their corporate practices equitable. Further, the Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting framework implemented by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) requires a band of listed entities—by market capitalization—to make disclosures regarding their environmental, social and governance performance. An important point to note in the Indian context is that the fundamental rights under the Constitution are not enforceable against private employers. Also, there is no specific legislation that provides anti-discrimination protections to employees in the private sector. Consequently, legal claims related to discriminatory hiring practices are relatively rare in India, and the associated legal risk is comparatively low when measured against jurisdictions such as the US. Impact of the US rollback: The rollback of DEI policies by American multi-nationals could be followed by their Indian affiliates. If a shift has already been made in their home country, it is unlikely that the American parent entities would expend resources beyond what would be statutorily prescribed on their Indian affiliates to further DEI initiatives. Given that the trend of introducing DEI policies in the workplace stemmed from American companies to begin with, it is likely that Indian companies that have not yet implemented such policies may put them on the backburner. However, homegrown conglomerates such as LemonTree, Godrej and the Tata Group, which have had long-standing DEI practices, appear not to be wavered by this global shift. A rollback of DEI initiatives at this time may portray them as being weak in their resolve, particularly when they are not being subject to the same scrutiny in India. Given the strong feelings associated with their rollback at American multinationals, it is possible that Indian entities may stand to gain by attracting affected members of the workforce by virtue of being workplaces where DEI practices are still recognized. Also Read: India Inc must stand by DEI: It's both a social and business imperative The road ahead: While the Indian DEI landscape seems to be growing, there are certain factors that companies need to consider while formulating their policies. The Indian corporate landscape differs significantly from that in America owing to different socioeconomic, ethnic and geopolitical factors. Therefore, Indian companies cannot operate on a 'cut-copy-paste' basis by simply borrowing from the American DEI movement. Further, DEI initiatives cannot operate in isolation and must be holistically linked to a company's growth strategy as well as the landscape in which it operates. Specifically, Indian companies need to focus on formulating diverse hiring practices, minimizing biases and creating job descriptions that are limited to the skill-set required to perform the job. Several Indian companies have set clear diversity hiring targets and track their progress. Such practices become crucial in ensuring a company's DEI policies benefit a diverse workforce and are not restricted to hegemonic sections of the society. Given that DEI initiatives are largely driven by proactive corporate actions, it is likely that the winds of the West may bring with them a change in the approach of the Indian companies. However, it remains to be seen if DEI will be reduced to a token gesture or it sprouts into a meaningful change. These are the authors' personal views. The authors are, respectively, partner, counsel and associate, Khaitan & Co.
