Recently, during the International Women’s Day celebrations held by the police department in Vijayawada, several women police officers raised an important issue before the government. They requested that maternity benefits be extended even beyond two deliveries.
A woman constable pointed out that while the Chief Minister has encouraged families to have more than two children, the government currently offers maternity insurance and other benefits only for the first two births.
Responding to this, Home Minister V. Anitha assured that the matter would be brought to the attention of Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu. This public appeal by women officers has reignited the discussion around the rights of mothers and the limitations imposed by existing laws.
The issue connects directly with a landmark Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that changed how the law views maternity benefits in India. Let’s understand in detail.
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision
On May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a key judgment in the case K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu. The case revolved around Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rule 101(a), which stated that maternity leave would be granted only to women government employees with less than two surviving children.
The Court held that this rule could not be used to deny maternity leave to a woman having her third biological child. This ruling was important because it broadened the scope of reproductive rights and connected them with the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
What the latest rule states
Under the Maternity Benefit Act, there is no restriction on the number of children for which a woman can receive maternity insurance or leave. The Act recognises maternity benefits as a part of a woman’s right to work and her right to health.
By interpreting both laws together, the Supreme Court ensured that women government employees in Tamil Nadu cannot be denied benefits simply because they have more than two children.
Along with expanding maternity insurance, experts also suggest that the government should focus on improving access to health insurance so that families receive complete medical and financial support during childbirth and child-rearing.
Why is this judgment important?
This judgment is not just a legal decision! It is also a powerful statement about women’s reproductive rights. The Court referred to several earlier cases, such as:
- Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration
- Devika Biswas v. Union of India,
- X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi
- Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal.
In all these cases, the Court had already recognised that the right to make decisions about one’s body and reproduction is a part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The reasoning in the Uma Devi case builds upon this idea. It acknowledges that women should not be punished or denied benefits because of their reproductive choices. Whether a woman chooses to have one child, two, or more, she should be entitled to full maternity insurance and leave benefits.
The bigger picture!
The main purpose of these benefits is twofold:
- To protect the health and financial security of the mother.
- To support her as a working professional so that motherhood does not become a barrier to her career.
Restricting benefits only to mothers with two children goes against these purposes. It places unnecessary pressure on women and ignores the reality that reproductive choices are deeply personal and influenced by various social and economic circumstances.
How the Supreme Court balanced “population control” and “women’s rights”
The government’s concern about population control is understandable. However, the Court pointed out that such a responsibility should not fall solely on women. Denying maternity insurance or leave to mothers with more than two children indirectly blames women for population growth while ignoring broader societal and policy factors.
Instead, policies should focus on:
- Education
- Healthcare access
- Awareness
Moreover, introducing comprehensive health insurance for parents can help families manage medical expenses better and encourage healthier pregnancies.
Thus, in the view of the Supreme Court, restricting women’s rights is not an ideal approach. The judgment emphasised that maternity insurance and benefits should be designed to support women as both mothers and workers, not as tools for population management.
Some gaps that remain in the landmark judgement!
While the Supreme Court judgment was a step in the right direction, it also highlighted existing gaps. The ruling applied only to Tamil Nadu’s Fundamental Rules, and no directive was issued to amend similar laws in other states.
This means that women in other parts of India might still face discrimination and be denied benefits beyond two children unless they go to court. In practice, this makes access to maternity insurance and leave unequal across the country.
The judgment also did not address the broader issue of paternity leave and parental leave, which are equally important for achieving gender equality.
Conclusion
The Uma Devi judgment has taken India two steps forward in recognising women’s reproductive and work-related rights. However, real progress will happen only when all states amend their laws to remove limits on maternity benefits and extend them equally to all mothers. At the same time, the government should:
- Strengthen maternity insurance coverage
- Ensure access to health insurance for parents
- Promote inclusive leave policies that support both men and women as caregivers.
Only then can the purpose of maternity benefits (protecting mothers, valuing their work, and promoting equality) be truly fulfilled.
