[ad_1]
INTRODUCTION
The following case is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India. It addresses the issue of maternity leave and also interprets and expands the traditional understanding of a family under Indian law. This commentary will delve into the facts, issues raised, contentions, rationale, defects of laws, and the court’s interference in this significant case.
FACTS
The appellant was Deepika Singh in this case was working as a nursing officer at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) in Chandigarh. She was married to Amir Singh on 18 February 2014. Amir Singh had 2 children already from his 1st marriage where his wife passed away on 16 February 2013. Later on, the appellant had her 1st biological child with Amit Singh in 2019. She applied for maternity leave under the rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (leave) Rules, 19721. But her request for leave was rejected as she had already added the husband’s two children’s name to her official service board record at PGIMER. This was done on 4 May 2015. After Deepika’s first child was born on 4 June 2019, she filed for the maternity leave under Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, from 27 June 2019 to 23 December 2019. PGIMER rejected her maternity leave application on 3 September 2019 on the grounds that she had already used child care leave for her husband’s children, and thus her biological child was considered her third child, making her ineligible for maternity leave. Moreover, instead of maternity leave, her leave was categorized as earned leave, medical leave, half pay leave and extraordinary leave. The appellant had to appeal to the apex court since The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the decision of the employer.
ISSUE RAISED
1. If Deepika Singh’s statutory right to maternity leave could be restricted because she had used child care leave previously on her non-biological children rather than her biological child?
2. If the denial of maternity leave to a woman who has already availed childcare leave for her step children would violate her right to equality which comes under the Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution?
3. Whether atypical families should receive equal benefits under social welfare legislation?
1https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=db52db27c5289883cfd6bc59ed588956b2a4a5685e991699701ad9004855 012fJmltdHM9MTc0MDk2MDAwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=1e3bbb40-a422-6d87-35e5- affda5d06c5b&psq=43+of+the+Central+Civil+Services+(leave)+Rules%2c+1972&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9kb2N1bWV udHMuZG9wdGNpcmN1bGFycy5uaWMuaW4vRDIvRDAyZXN0L3VwZGF0ZWRjY3NsZWF2ZXJ1bGVzTjlFeFYucGR m&ntb=1
CONTENTION
In the judgement of Supreme Court of India interpreted the definition of family under the Centre Services (leave) rules 19722to be gender neutral. The court also interpreted that it should be inclusive of all types of families whether they are single-parent families, same-sex couples, stepfamilies etc. The court held that the definition of family does not have limitation to its traditional interpretation i.e. as a unit consisting of a husband, wife and their biological children. The bench reasoned the following because the traditional notion of family is outdated and discriminatory. The court emphasised that such traditional models do not consider the reality of families where the children are born out of the wedlock, where there’s stepchildren in the family or the scenario of queer couples being parents.
The appellant contended that her right to maternity leave was denied and it should not be denied based on her previous use of childcare leave for her husband’s children. She contended that the refusal of maternity leave was against the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
RATIONALE
The Supreme Court had to interpret the extent of Rule 43 and decide if the CAT’s ruling was in accordance with the law. In the rule of natural justice, there are two primary elements: nemo judex in causa sua (no man is to be a judge in his own cause) and audi alteram partem (hear the other side). In the case of the appellant who was Deepika, emphasis was given to the fact that her rights were not denied unjustly and that she was dealt with fairly by her employer and the administrative tribunals. Moreover, the appellant was also initially denied maternity leave without a fair consideration of her circumstances and it was only when the supreme court evaluated the decision, she was provided with an opportunity to present her arguments and receive a fair hearing. Aligning with the principle of audi alteram partem, it ensures that both sides of the case are heard before making the final decision.
The act of denial of maternity leave based solely on her husband’s previous children was deemed to be arbitrary. The Supreme Court’s intervention prevented such arbitrary decisions and hence upheld the principle of natural justice by ensuring that administrative actions are reasonable and backed by law. The court adopted a purposive interpretation of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 in the following case. Purposive interpretation is a legal interpretation that focuses on the intention of the legislature when drafting the law and seeks to understand the true intention behind the legislation. The court used a purposive interpretation of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, to see that the purpose of providing maternity leave was achieved and prevented a technical interpretation that would have unjustly taken away the appellant’s rights and followed the principles of natural justice and ensured justice into the administrative action.
2https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=db52db27c5289883cfd6bc59ed588956b2a4a5685e991699701ad9004855 012fJmltdHM9MTc0MDk2MDAwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=1e3bbb40-a422-6d87-35e5- affda5d06c5b&psq=43+of+the+Central+Civil+Services+(leave)+Rules%2c+1972&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9kb2N1bWV udHMuZG9wdGNpcmN1bGFycy5uaWMuaW4vRDIvRDAyZXN0L3VwZGF0ZWRjY3NsZWF2ZXJ1bGVzTjlFeFYucGR m&ntb=1
DEFECTS OF LAWS
The case highlighted several defects in the laws and the application of laws. Firstly, the case had a limited definition of family under Indian law. Historically and traditionally the definition of a family is interpreted as a nuclear family made up of a mother, father, and their biological child. The definition does not consider unconventional family forms like single parent families, unmarried couples, and queer relationships. The supreme court pointed out that non-traditional families are just as real and deserving of legal sanction as traditional ones. This broadening reinforces the requirement for legal systems to be responsive to varying family structures, providing equal protection of the law to all families.
The following case also pointed out the inflexibility in the inflexibility in maternity leave rules, particularly Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 19723. Deepika’s request for maternity leave was rejected as she had taken child care leave for her step children earlier. The decision was taken on a rigid interpretation where she was counted as having her third child as it was her first biological child. The intervention by the Supreme Court brought clarity that child care leave and maternity leave are different entitlements. The court held that taking child care leave for step children should not limit the right of a woman to take maternity leave for her biological child. The judgment emphasized the requirement of having more flexible and comprehensive maternity leave schemes accommodating different family conditions which are unconventional but needed for acceptance in society.
There was lack of clarity and consistency in the administrative interpretation of rules of service on the legislative’s part. The Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) supported the ruling denying Deepika maternity leave, arguing that she had two living children from her husband’s first marriage. The ruling rested on a narrow interpretation of rules without regard for the larger social scenarios or for the difference between maternity and child care leave.
The judgment of the Supreme Court highlighted the need for firm and consistent administrative decisions in keeping with the social welfare aims of the law. It also emphasized that administrative actions must be motivated by a sense of fairness and justice, such that persons are not arbitrarily deprived of their statutory rights on the basis of traditional norms.
It is important in bridging the gap between law as norm and the reality of society. Through interpreting laws in a way that favors marginalized segments of society, the judiciary can make legal principles valid and fair for all citizens of society. In the following case also the supreme court pointed out a lack of adequate consideration of social welfare goals in administrative decisions. The denial of maternity leave at the first instance did not take into consideration the greater aim of maternity leave, which is to enable women to serve as
3https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=db52db27c5289883cfd6bc59ed588956b2a4a5685e991699701ad9004855 012fJmltdHM9MTc0MDk2MDAwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=1e3bbb40-a422-6d87-35e5- affda5d06c5b&psq=43+of+the+Central+Civil+Services+(leave)+Rules%2c+1972&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9kb2N1bWV udHMuZG9wdGNpcmN1bGFycy5uaWMuaW4vRDIvRDAyZXN0L3VwZGF0ZWRjY3NsZWF2ZXJ1bGVzTjlFeFYucGR m&ntb=1
caregivers and workers. The Supreme Court ruling placed importance on the purposive interpretation of laws so that they reflect their intended social goals.
Finally, the case illustrated a lack of gender sensitivity in administrative action. The refusal of maternity leave to the appellant initially revealed a failure to take into account the gendered roles and responsibilities that women usually have in care work in families. Especially in cases like these, where there are multiple children in the family, the ruling of the Supreme Court underscored the need for gender-sensitive policy that assists women in reconciling their work and family obligations.
The abovementioned issues were the defects of laws in the case. The Apex Court’s judgment addressed these defects by expanding the definition of family, clarifying the distinction between maternity and child care leave, emphasizing the need for clear and consistent administrative decisions, and promoting a purposive interpretation of laws that aligns with social welfare objectives. This decision underscores the importance of adapting legal frameworks to contemporary societal realities and therefore ensuring the laws remain inclusive, equitable, and responsive to the changing needs of society.
INTERFRENCE
The Supreme Court’s intervention was essential for several reasons. It firstly aimed to correct certain administrative errors which denied the appellant the maternity rights. By setting aside the judgements given by CAT and High Court respectively, it aimed to ensure that the appellant received the maternity benefits under the ambit of law. The apex court also expanded the definition of family and marked a significant shift in the legal landscape of family. It brought awareness and reform in the interpretration of the traditional meanings of terms. The apex court also upheld the principle of equality and justice in the Indian constitution. The ruling is a testament to the court’s dedication to social justice through the interpretation of laws in a way that favors marginalized sections of society. This ensures that the gap between legal norms and societal realities is bridged, making the law relevant and fair.
SUBMITTED BY KHUSHI MISHRA, A 1ST YEAR STUDENT FROM LLOYD LAW COLLEGE, AN INTERN UNDER AMIKUS QRIAE
[ad_2]
Source link