Women Can’t Be Forced To Choose Between Right To Education & Right To Exercise Reproductive Autonomy: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court while dealing with a plea seeking the benefit of maternity leave has held that the citizens cannot be forced to choose between their right to education and their right to exercise reproductive autonomy.
A Single Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed, “The Constitution envisaged an egalitarian society where citizens could exercise their rights, and the society as well as the State would allow the manifestation of their rights. A compromise was then not sought in the Constitutional scheme. The citizens could not be forced to choose between their right to education and their right to exercise reproductive autonomy. … A man could then well enjoy parenthood while pursuing his higher education, whereas a woman necessarily has to undergo pre and post pregnancy care. It is not her choice, but the will of nature. What is, however, left for us to decide is the consequence we would impose upon a woman who bears a child.”
The Bench was deciding the matter wherein the petitioner had requested 59 days of maternity leave who was enrolled in 2021 for pursuing the 2-year M.Ed. regular course from the respondent University.
Advocate Bhawanshu Sharma appeared for the petitioner while Advocates Apoorv Kurup and Nikhil Jain appeared for the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The petitioner in her petition had prayed for directions to the respondent university to allow her the benefit of maternity leave and pursuant to that, grant her relaxation of attendance for completing the Master of Education (M.Ed.) course. The petitioner also prayed for directions to the UGC to frame specific rules and regulations for the grant of maternity leave for post-graduate and undergraduate courses.
The petitioner had earlier filed an application for maternity leave before the concerned Dean and Vice-Chancellor of the university annexing the doctor's advice along with the prescription. Thereafter, she received a reply from the Dean whereby her request for maternity leave was denied, and when she did not receive any response to her grievance, she approached the High Court for the same.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “The only question that requires consideration of this court is whether, in the absence of any specific provisions for maternity leave, the same can be directed to be favourably considered by the respondent no.2-University.”
The Court said that the court, as well as the society, has two roads that it can tread in such a scenario i.e., it can either follow the bare text of an existing legal provision, be stuck at the bark of words, be blind to the consequences of the law, and allow it to take its course while the other path-way is of being sensitive to the person in the dispute, applying the values enshrined in the Constitution and attempting, wherever possible, to accommodate the law falling short of societal development.
“The first path would force a woman to necessarily choose between her right to a higher education and the right of becoming a mother. A woman would then have to either re-engage herself in the activity that she was previously pursuing and was halted by her pregnancy or would have to remain content with her having been unable to complete her vocation or education. … Undoubtedly, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court cannot create a different compartment for the purposes of relaxation of attendance. The applicable regulations which require a specific number of days of attendance are also required to be fulfilled. At the same time, the interests of candidates seeking maternity leave are also required to be catered to”, observed the Court.
Accordingly, the Court directed the university to consider the application of the petitioner and to rearrange practical classes during the period of her leave as a special case.
Cause Title- Renuka v. University Grants Commission (UGC) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:3785)
