Source:  High Court of Chhattisgarh 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held all mothers—biological, adoptive, or surrogate—are equally entitled to maternity leave as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,1950 (COI). 

• The High Court of Chhattisgarh held this in the matter of Lata Goyal v. The Union of India & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Lata Goyal v. The Union of India & Anr.(2025) Case? 

• Lata Goyal, employed as Assistant Administrative Officer at IIM Raipur since 2013, adopted a two-day-old infant girl on 20th November 2023. 
• Following the adoption, the petitioner applied for Child Adoption Leave for 180 days with effect from 20th November 2023. 
• The respondent institution (IIM Raipur) by order dated 18th December, 2023, denied the requested leave citing absence of such provision in the institute's HR policy. 
• IIM Raipur granted the petitioner 60 days of commuted leave instead, referring to their policy which provides maximum 60 days leave to female staff with fewer than two living children who adopt a child less than one year old. 
• The petitioner made multiple representations to higher authorities contending that as per Clause 1 of IIM's HR Policy, where rules are silent, Central Government Rules should be followed. 
• When her grievances remained unaddressed, the petitioner approached the State Women Commission, which recommended grant of 180 days Child Adoption Leave and 60 days Commuted Leave. 
• IIM Raipur challenged the Women Commission's order before the High Court, which set aside the Commission's order but granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal recourse. 
• The petitioner subsequently filed Writ Petition No. 6831 of 2024 before the Chhattisgarh High Court seeking declaration of her entitlement to Child Adoption Leave and Child Care Leave as per Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The High Court observed that the petition revolves around constitutional entitlement and protection, denial of which would violate the petitioner's rights under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 
• The Court noted that fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities, citing Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P. 
• The Court observed that IIM Raipur's HR Policy expressly states that for matters not specifically covered in their manual, the Institute shall be guided by rules prescribed by the Government of India. 
• The Court emphasized that adoptive mothers, like biological mothers, experience deep bonds of love and affection with their children, which are crucial for a child's emotional and psychological well-being. 
• The Court held that women's participation in the workforce is not a privilege, but a constitutional entitlement protected by Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. 
• The Court observed that Child Adoption Leave is not merely a benefit but a fundamental right supporting a woman's need to care for her family, and denial of such leave offends her right to life. 
• The Court found no justification for discrimination between biological and adoptive mothers with respect to maternity benefits, as the object of such leave is to protect the dignity of motherhood. 
• The Court referred to international conventions including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, emphasizing that protective legislation related to maternity benefits must be construed beneficially. 
• The Court concluded that the restrictive interpretation adopted by the respondent institution in denying Child Adoption Leave constituted an offence against the petitioner's fundamental rights. 

What are the Legal Provisions Referred? 

• Child Adoption Leave 
  • Child Adoption Leave is a type of leave granted to government employees when they adopt a child under Rules 43-B. Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. 
• Current Provisions (as of August 2009) 
  • Duration:  
    • Enhanced from 135 days to 180 days (per notification dated 20th August 2009). 
    • Applies to female government servants with fewer than two surviving children. 
  • Eligibility:  
    • Granted when adopting a child up to one year of age. 
    • Also applies to accepting a child in pre-adoption foster care. 
  • Pay during leave:  
    • Leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave. 
  • Combination with other leave:  
    • Can be combined with leave of any other kind. 
    • In continuation of Child Adoption Leave, adoptive mothers may also be granted leave of any kind due and admissible (including Leave Not Due and Commuted Leave not exceeding 60 days without medical certificate). 
    • This additional leave can be up to one year, reduced by the age of the adopted child on the date of adoption. 
  • Other features:  
    • Child Adoption Leave is not debited against the leave account. 
    • If pre-adoption foster care is not followed by valid adoption, the leave already availed is debited from other leave available to the employee. 
  • Paternity Leave for Adoptive Fathers (As per the 2009 notification): 
    • Male government servants (including apprentices) with less than two surviving children may be sanctioned Paternity Leave for 15 days. 
    • This must be taken within 6 months from the date of valid adoption 
    • Applies when adopting a child below the age of one year. 
• Definition of "Child" (As per the note in the Rule 43-B of CCS Leave Rules): 
  • "Child" includes a child taken as ward under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 or applicable personal law. 
  • Provided the ward lives with the government servant and is treated as a family member. 
  • And the government servant has conferred upon that ward the same status as a natural born child through a special will. 
  • This leave provision aims to give adoptive parents, particularly mothers, adequate time to bond with their newly adopted child, similar to the maternity leave provided to biological mothers. 

Relevant Case laws 

• Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P. (2023) - Established that fundamental rights under Articles 19/21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities. 
• B. Shah v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore and others (1977) - Held that beneficial construction should be extended to beneficial legislation like the Maternity Benefits Act which effectuates directive principles of state policy. 
• Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984) - Expanded the scope of right to life to include the right to motherhood and the right of every child to full development.