Author: Divay Nair, JECRC University
Abstract
The Supreme Court in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2022) said families can take many forms, not just the traditional ones shattered the long-held stereotype that a “family” only consists of a husband, wife, and biological children. The case involved a woman denied maternity leave due to her caregiving for stepchildren. It started as a fight for maternity rights turned into a historic moment for family jurisprudence in India. This article explores how the judgment acknowledged non-traditional families, applied constitutional morality over outdated social norms, and sets the tone for a more inclusive welfare legal system.
To the Point
The Supreme Court ruled that denying maternity benefits to a woman who had earlier taken not giving her leave to care for stepkids is unfair to her rights.The Court recognized that families in modern India exist in various forms—including stepfamilies, single-parent households, and unmarried partnerships—and that the law must protect them equally.
Use of Legal Jargon
The court said fairness matters more than old social norms that’s the promise of Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life and dignity) protect individuals in all family structures not just those defined by marriage or blood. The Court interpreted the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 with a lens of inclusivity, rejecting social morality in favor of progressive constitutional interpretation.
The judgment firmly aligned with living constitutionalism, reaffirming that the meaning of “family” must evolve with society.
The Proof
Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022
Facts: Deepika Singh, a government nurse, was denied maternity leave because she had earlier taken childcare leave for her husband’s children from a previous marriage. Authorities argued that she had already used her entitlement.
Held: The Supreme Court cancelled the earlier order and gave her maternity leave, saying her role as a stepmother still deserved care and support. Stepmother role did not erase her identity as a biological mother deserving maternity protection.
Other Supporting Cases
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
Held that individual autonomy and identity, including in relationships, must be respected under Article 21.
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan (2018)
Reaffirmed that choice of partner and forming a family is a fundamental right.
Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admin (2009)
Reinforced the importance of bodily autonomy and maternal rights, key to understanding maternity benefit protections.
Challenges in Implementation
1. Rigid Policy Language: Government rules and HR policies still rely on outdated, narrow definitions of “family.”
2. Administrative Discretion: Officers may continue denying benefits based on personal bias.
3. Legal Vacuum: No central statute yet defines or protects non-traditional family structures.
4. Social Prejudice: Live-in partners, queer couples, and step-parents often face informal discrimination from society and authorities.
Expert Views
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (Now CJI): Family isn’t limited to traditional structures it can include live-in partners, chosen families, or queer relationships built on love and commitment. The law must not discount the role of such families in providing love, care, and support.
Dr. Reva S. Mehta, Gender Rights Scholar: This is a landmark step in ensuring women in blended families are treated with equal dignity.
Adv. Manish Shankar, Supreme Court Litigator: The judgment reflects the Supreme Court’s willingness to embrace societal changes that many statutes have not yet recognized.
What Can Be Done Better?
1. Amendment of Welfare Laws: The Maternity Benefit Act,CCS Rules, and other employment laws should formally include terms like “step-parent,” “partner,” or “non-traditional caregiver.”
2. Awareness Drives: Government offices must educate HR and administrative officers on inclusive policy interpretation.
3. Judicial Training: Lower judiciary should receive training to apply constitutional principles to social welfare disputes.
4. Uniform Family Definition Across Laws: Personal laws, social welfare legislation, and service rules should adopt a common, gender-neutral, and inclusive definition of family.
Conclusion
Deepika Singh v. CAT is not just a victory for one woman’s right to maternity leave it was a big step in changing how Indian law understands ‘family’ by accepting that love, care, and support matter more than traditional labelscaregiving, love, and responsibility not just marriage or biology form the essence of a family, the Court has set a transformative precedent.
This judgment reflects a deeper truth: Families today are formed not by tradition but by trust, not by religion but by responsibility. As Indian society diversifies, so must its legal protections. The true test lies ahead in policy reform, grassroots enforcement, and changing social attitudes.
FAQs
Q1: Can a stepmother claim maternity benefits for her own biological child?
Yes. The Supreme Court has ruled that caregiving for stepchildren does not disqualify a woman from claiming benefits for her own child.
Q2: Are same sex and live in couples now legally seen as family in India?
While statutory laws haven’t yet changed, the Deepika Singh ruling paves the way for broader judicial recognition of such families under constitutional rights.
Q3: How is constitutional morality different from what society considers moral?
Social morality follows tradition and public opinion, while constitutional morality stands for equality, dignity, and freedom.
Q4: Can unmarried partners or single parents access government family benefits?
Under current policy, it’s inconsistent. But this judgment supports the view that such caregivers should receive equal protection under welfare schemes.
Q5: What changes should the government make after this judgment?
Government rules must be amended to ensure that benefits like maternity leave, housing, and pensions recognize diverse family setups.
