Chhattisgarh High Court: Adoptive Mothers Entitled to Child Adoption Leave Under Article 21

Introduction

In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has declared that adoptive mothers are entitled to child adoption or maternity leave, affirming that the right to motherhood and child care falls within the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court emphasized that the method by which a woman becomes a mother—whether through birth, surrogacy, or adoption—cannot be a ground for denial of such benefits.

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, delivering the judgment, held that the fundamental right to life under Article 21 includes a woman’s right to provide care and affection to her child. The Court ruled that there should be no distinction in maternity benefits between biological, surrogate, and adoptive mothers.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Lata Goyal, serves as an Assistant Administrative Officer at the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Raipur. She and her husband adopted a two-day-old baby girl on November 20, 2023. Following the adoption, she applied for 180 days of child adoption leave beginning from the date of adoption.

However, her request was denied by IIM Raipur on the basis of its Human Resources (HR) policy, which did not recognize such leave. Instead, she was granted 60 days of commuted leave, citing a clause that permits such leave to adoptive mothers with fewer than two living children, provided the adopted child is below one year of age.

Lata Goyal repeatedly requested that she be granted 180 days of leave as per the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, particularly Rule 43-B, which provides for such leave to female government employees upon valid adoption. She argued that the institute’s HR manual clearly states that in the absence of a specific provision, the Central Government rules shall apply.

When her efforts did not yield results, she approached the State Women Commission, which recommended that she be allowed the full 180 days of child adoption leave, along with the already granted 60 days of commuted leave. IIM Raipur contested the Commission’s recommendation in court, which initially ruled in its favor, but allowed the petitioner to seek appropriate legal remedies. This led to the present writ petition before the High Court.

HR Policy Must Follow Government Rules

Justice Guru examined the HR manual of IIM Raipur and found that it does not explicitly address child adoption leave. As a result, by its own guidelines, the institute must adopt the relevant rules of the Central Government. Rule 43-B(1) of the 1972 Rules explicitly provides for 180 days of leave to adoptive mothers in certain conditions.

The Court found that the denial of such leave solely based on internal HR policy amounted to a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21. It cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P., which held that fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 are enforceable even against private entities.

Motherhood is a Constitutional Right

The judgment strongly reaffirmed that all mothers, regardless of how they attain motherhood, are equally entitled to maternity benefits. The Court stated that maternity leave is not merely a concession or welfare benefit, but a constitutional right linked to dignity, health, and family life under Article 21.

Justice Guru stated:

“It is the inherent right of every woman employee which cannot be denied on technical grounds. If a woman is denied child care leave, it offends her fundamental right to life.”

He further added that the welfare of newborn children, including those adopted or born through surrogacy, necessitates that mothers be given adequate time to bond and care for them in their formative months. Denial of such leave would place working women in the difficult position of choosing between motherhood and professional life.

The Court also invoked Directive Principles of State Policy, especially Articles 38, 39, 42, and 43, to highlight the State’s duty to promote the welfare of women and children. It further observed that participation of women in the workforce is not a matter of privilege but a constitutional guarantee that must be safeguarded.

No Discrimination in Maternity Benefits

Justice Guru underlined that maternity benefits must be applied uniformly and should not depend on whether a woman becomes a mother through biological means or adoption. The objective of maternity leave is to protect the dignity and well-being of mothers and ensure the healthy development of children.

The judgment cited precedents including B. Shah v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore (1977) and Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984), to reiterate that the rights of mothers and adopted children are protected under Indian and international law. References were also made to global human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

“A newborn child cannot be left to the care of others during its formative phase. It needs the full attention and affection of its mother—whether she is biological or adoptive.”

Final Ruling

The Court concluded that Lata Goyal is entitled to 180 days of child adoption leave as per Rule 43-B(1) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. Since she had already been granted 84 days of leave under the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, the Court directed the authorities to adjust that against the 180 days of adoption leave.

Case Information

• Case Title: Lata Goyal v. Union of India & Anr.

• Case No: WPS No. 6831 of 2024

• Date of Judgment: May 5, 2025

• Petitioner’s Counsel: Shri Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Khushboo Naresh Dua

• Respondents’ Counsel: Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Shri Sabyasachi Bhaduri & Shri Harsh Dave