While deciding a case wherein an M.Ed. student sought maternity leave in the absence of specific provisions for the same, the Court pondered over the consequences society would impose upon a woman who bears a child.
The Delhi High Court recently directed Chaudhary Charan Singh University in Meerut to allow an application for maternity leave by a Master of Education (M.Ed.) student if she fulfils the minimum attendance requirement [Renuka v. University Grants Commission].
While passing the order, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav underscored that 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,” said the judge in his order.
Before the Court was a case where despite the absence of specific provisions for maternity leave, the petitioner had moved a plea seeking the same.
The petitioner had also sought a direction to the University Grants Commission (UGC) to frame specific rules and regulations for maternity leave for postgraduate and undergraduate courses.
In such a scenario, the Court said that it could follow two paths. Either follow the bare text or apply Constitutional values to accommodate a law which was 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,” the judge added.
It was further elaborated that the woman will then either have to re-engage herself in education or remain content with having been unable to complete her vocation or education.
Nonetheless, Justice Kaurav also recognised the need to fulfil the specific number of attendance and stated that the Court could not create a different compartment for the purposes of relaxation of attendance.
Thus, on examining the facts, it was found that if the leave of 59 days as sought by the petitioner was granted for theory classes, she would still fulfil the 80 per cent attendance criteria.
“The same would ensure that the right of the petitioner is secured without compromising the standards to be maintained by the educational institution.”
Thus, the Court directed the University to consider the application afresh and to allow the petitioner to appear for examinations if she fulfils the minimum attendance criteria in theory classes.
With regard to the petitioner missing practical classes, the Court said that the same could be rearranged as a special case.
