sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

June 20, 2025

LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

Leave a Comment / JOB /

LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI Sweta Kumari About RIL Reliance is India’s largest and most profitable private sector company. Our motto “Growth is Life” aptly captures the ever-evolving spirit of Reliance. In just over four decades, we have emerged as one of India’s most valuable, stakeholder-centric organisations, building valuable assets for India and innovating for a better future for all Indians. About the Opportunity Reliance Industries Limited has opened up applications for the position of a team member (legal) to work with them at their office in Navi Mumbai. Eligibility LLB 2-3 years of relevant post-qualification experience with a law firm or in-house corporate team. Experience of advisory work in the following areas: Corporate and Commercial Laws Contract review Current and updated knowledge of Corporate and Commercial laws. Effective communication skills with attention to detail. Good interpersonal and communication skills. Location Navi Mumbai. How to Apply? Interested candidates can apply through the link given below. Click here to Apply Never miss an opportunity! Click to join our whatsapp channel More Oppurtunities LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI Sadalaw • June 20, 2025 LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KKR, GURUGRAM Sadalaw • June 20, 2025 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT NYAYASARTHAK Sadalaw • June 20, 2025 1 2 3 Next »

LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI Read More »

LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KKR, GURUGRAM

Leave a Comment / JOB /

LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KKR, GURUGRAM Sweta Kumari About KKR KKR is a leading global investment firm that offers alternative asset management as well as capital markets and insurance solutions. KKR aims to generate attractive investment returns by following a patient and disciplined investment approach, employing world-class people, and supporting growth in its portfolio companies and communities. About the Opportunity The current role in the Gurugram office is for a corporate attorney who will be responsible for supporting commercial contracts entered into by the firm’s management companies, with a focus on technology, market data and professional services agreements. Eligibility Bachelor’s Degree in Law with 7+ years of work experience in a top tier law firm or in-house legal department as a lawyer drafting and negotiating technology and commercial agreements Experience in a multinational finance shared services organization and/or Private Equity preferred Location Gurugram. How to Apply? Interested candidates can apply through the link given below. Click here to Apply Never miss an opportunity! Click to join our whatsapp channel More Oppurtunities LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KKR, GURUGRAM Sadalaw • June 20, 2025 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT NYAYASARTHAK Sadalaw • June 20, 2025 JOB OPPORTUNITY AT GREENFINCH LEGAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., ANDHRA PRADESH Sadalaw • June 19, 2025 1 2 3 Next »

LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KKR, GURUGRAM Read More »

LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT NYAYASARTHAK

Leave a Comment / Internship /

LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT NYAYASARTHAK Sweta Kumari About the Organization As a team of lawyers, we have embarked on a new initiative aimed at making a meaningful impact in the lives of the less fortunate. We firmly believe in the power of pro bono legal assistance and its potential to uplift communities in need. Our team is committed to providing pro bono legal services to individuals who are facing financial difficulties and are in dire need of legal support. By offering our expertise, we aim to make a positive difference and contribute to a more just and equitable society. We understand that access to legal aid can be challenging for many, and our goal is to bridge this gap by providing our services to those who might not have the means to afford legal representation. About the Internship NyayaSarthak presents you an Virtual Internship opportunity under the Guidance of Advocate of Supreme Court of India. At NyayaSarthak, we believe that justice should be accessible to all, regardless of one’s socio-economic background. To turn this belief into a reality, we are launching an ambitious pro bono initiative aimed at providing legal assistance to those who are in dire need but cannot afford legal representation. Under the expert guidance of Advocate, all interns will be indulged in various activities related to Law so that one can widen his/her knowledge base. This unique virtual internship is designed to provide invaluable experience in Drafting and Research work, allowing law students across the country to enhance their skills from the comfort of their homes. It is expected from all the interns to do all the works assigned in the due time and anyone not complying with the rules will be terminated Eligibility All students are eligible Mode of Internship Virtual Mode, Participate from anywhere in the country. Stipend No stipend shall be paid to interns during the internship. Certificate of completion of internship shall be provided upon with no Charges for Certification. Duration of the Internship The period of Internship shall be for a period from 1st July, 2025 to 31st July, 2025. How to Apply? Candidates can apply through the link given below. Click here to apply Never miss an opportunity! Click to join our whatsapp channel More Oppurtunities LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT NYAYASARTHAK Sadalaw • June 20, 2025 JOB OPPORTUNITY AT GREENFINCH LEGAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., ANDHRA PRADESH Sadalaw • June 19, 2025 LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT BURGEON LAW Sadalaw • June 19, 2025 1 2 3 Next »

LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT NYAYASARTHAK Read More »

K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Bombay High Court Upholds ₹538 Crore Arbitration Award Against BCCI in Kochi Tuskers Case Supreme Court Slams Karnataka High Court Over Thug Life Ban, Defends Kamal Haasan’s Free Speech Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws ED Moves to Fast-Track Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav and Family in IRCTC Scam and Land-for-Jobs Case Chhattisgarh High Court Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation in Custodial Death Case, Cites Police Misconduct Supreme Court Rules Title Deed Essential for Property Ownership in Landmark Judgment K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Righ NITU KUMARI 20 june 2025 Discover the landmark 2025 Supreme Court of India ruling in K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu that recognizes maternity leave as a fundamental reproductive right, overturning denial based on the two-child policy. Learn about the case facts, legal provisions, and implications for women’s rights in India. Introduction to K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu Case The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment on May 23, 2025, in the case of K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu. This case addressed the denial of maternity leave to a female government employee due to the state’s two-child policy. The Court ruled that maternity leave is a crucial part of reproductive rights and cannot be denied on the basis of a two-child norm, affirming women’s constitutional rights to equality, dignity, and personal liberty. Facts of the Case: Denial of Maternity Leave for Third Child K Umadevi, a government school teacher in Tamil Nadu, was denied maternity leave after becoming pregnant with her third child from her second marriage. The state invoked Fundamental Rule 101(a), which restricts maternity leave for female government employees who already have two surviving children. Despite her challenge in the Madras High Court, where she initially won, the Division Bench overturned the decision. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court of India for a final verdict. Key Legal Issues in K Umadevi vs Tamil Nadu Government Is maternity leave a constitutional right linked to reproductive rights or merely a statutory benefit? Can the two-child policy justify denial of maternity leave to female government employees? Does the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 impose any limit on the number of children for which maternity leave can be granted? Should service rules consider children not under the mother’s custody (from a prior marriage) when applying the two-child norm? Relevant Legal Provisions Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Right to Life and Personal Liberty The Supreme Court examined if denying maternity leave violates Article 21, which guarantees the right to life with dignity. Section 5 & Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 These sections ensure paid maternity leave during pregnancy and after childbirth, and give the Act overriding power over inconsistent laws or service rules. Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Right to Equality The Court highlighted that denying maternity leave based on the number of children without individual consideration is discriminatory and violates the right to equality. Supreme Court Judgment: Upholding Maternity Leave as a Reproductive Right The two-judge bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, set aside the Division Bench’s ruling and upheld the Single Judge’s decision in favor of K Umadevi. The Court emphasized: Maternity leave is an integral part of women’s reproductive rights, encompassing dignity, privacy, health, and equality. Population control policies like the two-child norm must be balanced with the constitutional rights of female employees. Maternity leave must be granted regardless of the number of children, as childbirth is a natural incident of life. Women should be treated with respect and dignity in the workforce, and maternity benefits are essential to support their well-being and work performance. Impact and Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision in K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) is a significant victory for women’s reproductive autonomy and labor rights. It clarifies that denying maternity leave based on restrictive population control policies violates constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 21. This judgment reinforces maternity benefits as fundamental rights, encouraging fair treatment of women employees across India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right Read More »

Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Bombay High Court Upholds ₹538 Crore Arbitration Award Against BCCI in Kochi Tuskers Case Supreme Court Slams Karnataka High Court Over Thug Life Ban, Defends Kamal Haasan’s Free Speech Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws ED Moves to Fast-Track Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav and Family in IRCTC Scam and Land-for-Jobs Case Chhattisgarh High Court Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation in Custodial Death Case, Cites Police Misconduct Supreme Court Rules Title Deed Essential for Property Ownership in Landmark Judgment Mehul Choksi Sues Indian Government in London Over Alleged Abduction From Antigua Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims REHA BHARGAV 20 June 2025 The Supreme Court clarifies that the affinity test is not mandatory for verifying Scheduled Tribe (ST) claims. Documentary evidence remains primary for ST status verification in Maharashtra and across India. Introduction The landmark case of Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (March 24, 2023) addresses the critical issue of verifying Scheduled Tribe (ST) status in India, focusing on the “Thakur” community in Maharashtra. This judgment by the Supreme Court of India highlights the role of the affinity test in caste verification and clarifies that it cannot be used as the sole determinant for granting or denying ST status. Background and Facts of the Case The dispute arose from concerns over fraudulent claims to Scheduled Tribe status, which grant access to benefits such as reservation in education, employment, and political representation. Maharashtra’s Scrutiny Committees and Vigilance Cells used the affinity test—a method assessing claimants’ knowledge of tribal customs—to verify ST claims. However, genuine claimants were reportedly rejected based solely on failing this test, despite submitting valid documentary evidence like ancestral caste certificates, school records, and revenue documents. Previous conflicting judgments on the affinity test created confusion, prompting the Supreme Court to clarify the legal position. Key Issue in the Case Is the affinity test a mandatory and conclusive method for verifying Scheduled Tribe claims, or should it only be supplementary when documentary evidence is inconclusive? Arguments Presented Petitioner’s Viewpoint Over-reliance on the affinity test is arbitrary and dismisses valid documentary evidence. Tribal customs evolve due to modernization and urbanization, making affinity tests less reliable. Documentary evidence should have primacy over anthropological tests. The affinity test was sometimes misused without proper justification or recorded reasons. Conflicting judicial precedents necessitate clarity. Improper use of the affinity test leads to wrongful denial of rights for genuine tribals. Respondent’s Viewpoint The affinity test helps prevent misuse of ST certificates by non-tribals. Past judgments support the affinity test as an integral verification tool. Verification should be holistic, combining affinity tests, documentary evidence, and field inquiries. Vigilance Cells have authority to conduct affinity tests and background investigations. Rejection is justified if claimants fail the affinity test and have questionable documentation. Strict scrutiny is essential to protect the reservation system’s integrity. Supreme Court Judgment Highlights Affinity Test Is Not Conclusive: The Supreme Court ruled that the affinity test cannot be the sole or mandatory test for verifying ST claims; it is only a supplementary tool when documentary evidence raises doubts. Primacy of Documentary Evidence: Documentary proof such as caste certificates, historical records, and official documents remain the primary basis for ST status verification. Recognition of Cultural Evolution: The Court acknowledged that tribal customs evolve due to urban migration and social integration, meaning unfamiliarity with traditional customs alone cannot disqualify a claimant. Limited Role of Vigilance Cells: Vigilance Cells should be involved only when necessary and after specific doubts are recorded by Scrutiny Committees. Reconciliation of Conflicting Judgments: The Court clarified earlier contradictory rulings and overruled the idea that failure in the affinity test is fatal to ST claims. Directions for Scrutiny Committees: Committees must prioritize documentary verification, exercise caution with affinity tests, and provide reasoned decisions respecting constitutional rights. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s judgment provides a balanced framework for verifying Scheduled Tribe claims. While the affinity test may serve as a useful supplementary tool, it cannot replace documentary evidence as the foundation for determining ST status. The ruling protects genuine tribal claimants and safeguards the integrity of the reservation system by preventing arbitrary rejections based solely on cultural unfamiliarity. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Read More »

Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Bombay High Court Upholds ₹538 Crore Arbitration Award Against BCCI in Kochi Tuskers Case Supreme Court Slams Karnataka High Court Over Thug Life Ban, Defends Kamal Haasan’s Free Speech Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws ED Moves to Fast-Track Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav and Family in IRCTC Scam and Land-for-Jobs Case Chhattisgarh High Court Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation in Custodial Death Case, Cites Police Misconduct Supreme Court Rules Title Deed Essential for Property Ownership in Landmark Judgment Mehul Choksi Sues Indian Government in London Over Alleged Abduction From Antigua Supreme Court Stays Contempt Proceedings Against Bengal Police Officers Over 2019 Howrah Lathicharge Incident Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) NITU KUMARI 19 June 2025 In Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court of India ruled that prolonged pre-trial detention under the NDPS Act violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learn how this landmark 2023 judgment balanced personal liberty with statutory bail restrictions. Introduction – Liberty vs. Law in NDPS Bail Cases In a landmark 2023 decision, the Supreme Court of India addressed the critical issue of prolonged incarceration of an undertrial under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The petitioner, Mohd. Muslim, had been held in pre-trial custody for over seven years without trial completion. This case raised urgent constitutional concerns about Article 21—which guarantees personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial. The Court emphasized that Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent bail restrictions, cannot be interpreted so rigidly as to violate these fundamental rights. Background and Facts of the Case Arrest and Charges Under NDPS Act In 2015, Mohd. Muslim was arrested for alleged possession and trafficking of a commercial quantity of narcotic substances, a serious offence under the NDPS Act. He remained in custody for over seven years, during which the trial saw minimal progress, with several prosecution witnesses yet to be examined. Despite multiple bail applications, the courts consistently rejected his pleas, citing the strict conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which heavily restrict bail for such offences. Legal Issue Before the Supreme Court The core issue was: Does prolonged pre-trial incarceration under Section 37 of the NDPS Act violate Article 21, and should bail be granted when trials are indefinitely delayed? The petitioner argued that his right to liberty and presumption of innocence had been infringed due to the lack of trial progress, while the State emphasized the seriousness of narcotic offences and the strict statutory bar on bail. Petitioner’s Arguments – Liberty Must Prevail The petitioner contended: Seven years in custody without conviction violated his right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The presumption of innocence must not be defeated by indefinite detention. Section 37’s bail restrictions cannot override constitutional protections. Previous Supreme Court rulings recognize trial delays as valid grounds for bail. Respondent’s Arguments – Public Interest and Statutory Limits The State (NCT of Delhi) argued: The case involved a serious narcotics offence, justifying strict scrutiny. Section 37 of the NDPS Act clearly restricts bail unless the accused is deemed not guilty and unlikely to reoffend. While there were delays, they were procedural and case-specific. Granting bail could weaken the NDPS Act’s deterrent effect. Supreme Court’s Judgment – Bail Granted in the Interest of Justice The Supreme Court, led by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, granted bail and made the following key observations: Prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21. The stringency of Section 37 does not override constitutional safeguards. Courts must prioritize liberty when systemic delays prevent fair trial timelines. The judgment stated: “Deprivation of liberty for a single day is one too many… Prolonged incarceration without trial is a travesty of justice.” The Court ruled that bail must be granted when an undertrial has spent more time in custody than many convicts, without any meaningful progress in their case. Conclusion – A Landmark on Bail and Constitutional Rights This judgment in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) is a critical precedent that reaffirms the primacy of personal liberty and fair trial under Article 21. It signals a more humane and constitutionally balanced approach to bail decisions under special criminal laws like the NDPS Act. While recognizing the seriousness of drug offences, the Court made it clear: No statute can justify indefinite pre-trial incarceration. The ruling strengthens the constitutional commitment to justice, liberty, and the presumption of innocence. H2: Key Takeaways for Legal and Constitutional Law NDPS Act Section 37 is not absolute; constitutional rights prevail. Trial delays are a legitimate ground for bail, even in serious offences. Pre-trial detention beyond a reasonable period is unconstitutional. The judgment reinforces the importance of balancing security with liberty. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on SBI vs Rajesh Agarwal: Borrowers’ Right to Hearing Under SARFAESI Act and RBI Fraud Classification Guidelines Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Read More »

Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Bombay High Court Upholds ₹538 Crore Arbitration Award Against BCCI in Kochi Tuskers Case Supreme Court Slams Karnataka High Court Over Thug Life Ban, Defends Kamal Haasan’s Free Speech Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws ED Moves to Fast-Track Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav and Family in IRCTC Scam and Land-for-Jobs Case Chhattisgarh High Court Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation in Custodial Death Case, Cites Police Misconduct Supreme Court Rules Title Deed Essential for Property Ownership in Landmark Judgment Mehul Choksi Sues Indian Government in London Over Alleged Abduction From Antigua Supreme Court Stays Contempt Proceedings Against Bengal Police Officers Over 2019 Howrah Lathicharge Incident JOB OPPORTUNITY AT GREENFINCH LEGAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., ANDHRA PRADESH Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Nitu Kumari 19 June 2025 Supreme Court affirms maternity leave as a reproductive right in K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025), ruling two-child norms can’t deny constitutional maternity benefits. Introduction In a landmark decision on May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of K. Umadevi, a government school teacher denied maternity leave under Tamil Nadu’s two-child policy. The ruling emphasized that maternity leave is a constitutional component of a woman’s reproductive rights, outweighing restrictive service rules. Background of the Case Who is K. Umadevi? K. Umadevi was appointed as an English teacher in a Government Higher Secondary School in Tamil Nadu in 2012. Following the end of her first marriage and after remarrying, she became pregnant in 2021. She was denied maternity leave on the grounds that this was her third child. Reason for Denial The Tamil Nadu government cited Fundamental Rule (FR) 101(a), which bars maternity leave for employees with more than two surviving children. This rule prompted legal scrutiny over whether administrative service rules can override constitutional rights. Legal Issues Before the Court Can the two-child policy override a woman’s statutory and constitutional rights? Is maternity leave just a service benefit or a fundamental right under Article 21? Does the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 restrict leave based on the number of children? Should the policy apply if the mother does not have custody of earlier children? Relevant Legal Provisions 1. Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty Guarantees every individual the right to live with dignity. The Court assessed whether denying maternity leave violated this essential right. 2. Article 14 – Right to Equality Protects against discrimination. The case examined whether denying maternity leave to a remarried woman was a violation of equality before the law. 3. Section 5 – Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 Provides maternity benefits regardless of the number of childbirths, adjusting only the duration of leave. It does not prohibit the leave itself. 4. Section 27 – Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 States the Act overrides all inconsistent laws, including administrative service rules such as FR 101(a). Court’s Observations and Ruling Denial of Maternity Leave Was Unlawful The Madras High Court Division Bench initially denied relief to Umadevi. However, the Supreme Court Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan overturned this decision, holding that: Maternity benefits are part of reproductive rights. Service rules cannot violate a woman’s right to dignity and equality. State policy and constitutional rights must be interpreted harmoniously. Recognition of Reproductive Rights The judgment affirmed that reproductive autonomy includes: The right to health The right to privacy The right to equality The right to non-discrimination These are essential rights that cannot be overridden by bureaucratic norms. Final Orders by the Court The Supreme Court directed the following: Set aside the Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court. Uphold the Single Judge’s earlier order favoring Umadevi. Mandate that the Tamil Nadu government grant maternity leave as per the Maternity Benefit Act. Conclusion The K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) case is a landmark decision affirming that maternity leave is a fundamental right tied to reproductive freedom. It reiterates that personal liberty and equality under the Constitution cannot be curtailed by arbitrary administrative policies. This judgment sets a strong precedent for upholding women’s rights in India, ensuring that employment policies respect constitutional values and human dignity. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on SBI vs Rajesh Agarwal: Borrowers’ Right to Hearing Under SARFAESI Act and RBI Fraud Classification Guidelines Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan: Interpretation of Remand Date for Default Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote