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 ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.
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.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Indian Express

41 minutes ago

• Indian Express

High Court notice to Goa govt over fees waved for land zone corrections

The High Court of Bombay at Goa Thursday issued notice to the state government, Secretary Town and Country Planning department, Town and Country Planning Department, Directorate of Vigilance and former chief town planner in a petition seeking directions to the authorities to recover the fees allegedly 'illegally waived' under a contentious provision of the Goa Town and Country Planning (TCP) Act. According to the petitioner, activist Swapnesh Sherlekar, the fees for correction of certain land zones was illegally waived under section 17 (2) of the Goa Town and Country Planning (TCP) Act on the 'specious' ground that 'deletion of proposed road fee is not applicable'. The section 17(2), which was introduced through an amendment to the TCP Act and notified in 2023, allows the conversion of privately owned plots in Goa's Regional Plan 2021, based on individual applications from such parties to 'correct inadvertent errors' and 'rectify inconsistent or incoherent zoning'. The government notified the fees for correction of zones under section 17 (2) of the Act on March 16, 2023. Subsequently, the revised fee for zone changes was notified through the supplement official gazette on March 28 last year. The HC read down the section in March this year. The petition states in the list of cases considered for correction of zone under section 17 (2) of the Act, several entries contained a notation 'deletion of proposed road fee not applicable' without any statutory basis for such exemption. The petition stated that among such cases were properties belonging to TCP Minister Vishwajit Rane, who is also a respondent in the petition, alleging that he 'benefited from an unauthorized exemption of fees'. The petition said there are 'numerous' cases of deletion of proposed roads since the Act was notified, which require scrutiny for similar unauthorised exemptions. It further said that there is no provision in the TCP Act or any rules, regulations or notifications thereunder that provide exemption of fees for deletion of proposed roads under section 17 (2) of the Act. The petition said the respondent authorities have acted with 'manifest arbitrariness, mala fide and abuse of power in exempting certain applications from payment of statutory fees without any legal basis or justification.' The petition further claimed that the respondent authorities have failed to discharge their duties in accordance with law and have instead acted in a manner that suggests collusion to confer undue benefit on certain individuals at the expense of the public exchequer. On Thursday, the High Court heard the submissions of the petitioners. In the order, the court said: 'At this stage, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to respondent 1 to 4 as well as respondent 6 in the capacity of chief town planner (planning)…' The Court also directed the respondents to file an affidavit in response within three weeks. The court said it has 'noted the specific pleadings in the petition, which revolve around the properties' belonging to Rane, but did not issue a notice to him.

Hindustan Times

2 hours ago

• Hindustan Times

PWD minister orders action against untreated sewage discharge in Delhi

Jun 21, 2025 05:34 AM IST Public Works Department (PWD) minister Parvesh Verma on Friday ordered immediate action against the discharge of untreated sewage and industrial waste in the Capital, PWD said in a statement. Delhi cabinet minister Parvesh Verma. (HT Photo) The concerned departments were ordered to inspect commercial, industrial, and all other establishments which are legally mandated to have Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) or Effluent Treatment Plants (ETPs) installed and operating. The inspections are meant to ensure that the plants have been properly installed and are fully functional, and that the establishments are complying with existing environmental norms. Legal action will be taken against any establishment which is found to be violating these norms, and penalties will be enforced under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. A centralised monitoring system will be created in the form of a real-time electronic dashboard, which will track inspections, violations, and corrective actions. The concerned departments have also been instructed to coordinate with each other to eliminate bureaucratic delays, and to submit bi-monthly compliance reports to the minister's office. 'This is a crisis that can no longer be ignored. Delhi cannot afford to let untreated sewage flow into its lifelines. No polluter will be spared. We will act, and act fast,' said Verma.

Time of India

2 hours ago

• Time of India

Speak freely

Why all courts must protect your right to speak your mind In India, the Constitution says you have the right to speak freely – as long as you don't break certain fair rules (like spreading hate or lies). But this right only really works if all courts across the country protect it. Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) – the top court in India – stood up strongly for free speech. In the case of a film called Thug Life by Kamal Haasan, someone said their feelings were hurt and wanted the film blocked in Karnataka. But the SC said no – just because someone is offended doesn't mean another person should lose their right to express themselves. If hurt feelings were enough, then free speech would always be in danger. This isn't the first time. Just a few months ago, in a case about poet Imran Pratapgarhi, the SC said that even if lots of people dislike your opinion, you still have the right to share it. But not all courts agree. Recently, the Calcutta High Court told a young person, 'You can't hurt others just because you have free speech.' And the Karnataka High Court told Haasan something similar. Lower courts also sometimes say things that go against what the SC has already made very clear. This creates confusion and makes people afraid to speak their minds, because they don't know if a local court might punish them, even if the SC would support them. In a strong democracy, free speech matters. And if it's a right promised by the Constitution, every court – not just the top one – needs to protect it. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.