The Madras High Court has ruled that the State cannot discriminate in granting maternity benefits, including leave for a third pregnancy, emphasizing that such restrictions are legally untenable.
A Division Bench comprising Justices R Suresh Kumar and N Senthil Kumar delivered the judgment on April 28 while allowing a petition filed by Shayee Nisha.
The Bench set aside orders issued on March 27, 2026, by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, which had rejected Nisha’s request for maternity leave from February 2, 2026, to February 1, 2027. It also quashed the direction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Villupuram, requiring her to resume duty on April 27, 2026.
Directing reconsideration of her application, the Court instructed the district judiciary to grant maternity leave on par with that provided for first and second pregnancies, without being constrained by the Government Order dated March 13, 2026, and to do so within one week.
Nisha had approached the Court after her request for leave for her third pregnancy was denied under G.O. (Ms) No. 18 issued by the Human Resources Management Department. The Government Order permitted maternity leave for a third child but restricted it to 12 weeks.
Referring to binding precedents of the Supreme Court of India and earlier Division Bench rulings of the High Court, the judges held that such a limitation could not withstand judicial scrutiny. They noted that although the State had acted under its executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, the restriction conflicted with established law.
The Bench observed that there was no rational basis for limiting maternity leave for a third pregnancy to 12 weeks. “If it is a pregnancy—whether first, second, or third—the physical and medical demands remain the same. Pre- and post-natal care cannot be differentiated,” the Court said, underscoring that equal treatment must be ensured.
It further remarked that the State, which has consistently positioned itself as a welfare government promoting women’s rights through progressive policies, had deviated from its own approach by imposing such a restriction.
The Court also rejected the State’s reliance on Section 5(3) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 to justify the curtailed leave period, stating that the provision could not override judicial precedents that had already settled the issue.
Concluding that the Government Order could not govern decisions on maternity leave for the judiciary, the Bench held that the restriction to 12 weeks for third pregnancies was “unjustifiable” and legally unsustainable.
(With inputs from PTI)