The Madras High Court has held that the government cannot treat women differently while granting maternity leave, including in cases of a third pregnancy.
A division bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and N. Senthil Kumar passed the order on April 28 while allowing a petition filed by Shayee Nisha. Nisha had sought maternity leave from February 2, 2026 to February 1, 2027.
Her request was rejected by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, on March 27, 2026. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Villupuram, had also directed her to rejoin duty on April 27.
The High Court set aside both orders and directed the district judge to reconsider her application within a week.
It asked that maternity leave be granted on par with that given for first and second pregnancies, without being guided by a Government Order dated March 13, 2026.
The petitioner said her request for leave for a third pregnancy was rejected based on G.O. (MS) No.18 issued by the Human Resources Management Department.
Referring to earlier rulings of the Supreme Court and its own benches, the court said the state had allowed maternity leave for a third pregnancy but limited it to 12 weeks through the March 13 order.
“This kind of restriction made by the government by issuing GO under its executive power vested in them under Article 162 of the Constitution against the dictum of the Supreme Court as well as this Court cannot be approved,” the bench said.
It also questioned the basis of limiting leave to three months.
“For restricting the leave period to 12 weeks, absolutely there was no justification on the part of the government. If it was a pregnancy, may be the first, second or the third, suffering would be the same and pre-delivery as well as post-delivery care must be taken by the women. This was equal to all such pregnancies. Therefore, no discrimination could be shown by the government in approving the maternity benefits, especially maternity leave for the third pregnancy to the employees,” the bench added.
The court said the restriction was not in line with the state’s policies for women’s welfare and also did not match the legal position settled earlier.
It referred to the Umadevi case and earlier High Court rulings in the cases of B Ranjitha and P Mangaiyarkkarasi.
“Therefore, the import of GO dated March 13,2026, in our considered view, shall not control the District Judiciary in dealing with these kinds of applications from pregnant women for sanction of maternity leave, even for third pregnancy,” the bench ruled.
The court also examined the government’s reliance on the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
“Therefore, we think that the said justification given by the government in restricting the maternity leave benefit only for 12 weeks' period for third pregnancy is unjustifiable”, the bench added.