Right to Motherhood and Breastfeeding Part of Article 21

Source: Rajasthan High Court

Why in News? 

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand of the Rajasthan High Court decided Suman Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2026). The Court stayed the transfer of a woman teacher made two months after she gave birth, directed the State to reconsider her case sympathetically, and urged the Government to frame a policy on transfers of women employees with infants. 

What was the Background of Suman Meena v. State of Rajasthan (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner was posted as a Senior Teacher at Gangapur, Sawai Madhopur. 
• Just two months after she gave birth, she was transferred to Masalpur, Karauli. 
• She filed an appeal against the transfer, stating that such a distant posting would make it difficult to care for her infant. 
• The appeal was rejected. 
• Aggrieved, she filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On Article 21: 

• The right to motherhood, the right to breastfeed, and the infant’s right to be breastfed and nurtured are part of the right to life with dignity under Article 21. 
• Forcibly separating a two-month-old child from the mother through a distant transfer would deprive both of this right. 
• It would cause the infant irreparable psychological trauma, insecurity, malnutrition and health hazards that cannot be compensated. 

On the best interests of the child: 

• Where an infant is involved, the legal focus shifts from administrative efficiency to the best interests of the child, which become the paramount consideration. 
• The first six months of exclusive breastfeeding are universally recognised by WHO and UNICEF as the most critical period for a child’s physical, mental and emotional development. 
• Child care, maternal care and infant welfare are an integral part of social justice. 

On the approach of the State: 

• As far as possible, a woman employee with a child below one year should not be disturbed, and her case should be considered sympathetically rather than mechanically. 
• The State, as a model employer, is expected to protect the bond between mother and child and not break it through mechanical transfers. 
• Nursing mothers require a more humane, compassionate and sensitive approach. 

On the legality of the transfer: 

• The transfer order was contrary to the State’s own Transfer Policy, the principles of humanity and Article 21. 
• It was also against the spirit of:  
  • The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as amended in 2017; 
  • The Child Care Leave norms; and 
  • The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. 

On the need for a policy: 

• The Court noted the absence of a policy dealing with transfers of women employees who have recently delivered or are caring for infants. 
• It urged the Government to frame an appropriate transfer policy to address the hardship faced by both mother and infant. 

Directions: 

• The State was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s case sympathetically and humanely, in the interest of the infant. 
• The transfer order was stayed until such reconsideration. 
• The Registry was directed to forward a copy of the order to the Ministry of Law and Justice. 

What is the Constitutional and Legal Framework for Maternity Protection? 

Constitutional provisions: 

• Article 15(3): Permits the State to make special provisions for women and children. 
• Article 21: Protects the right to life and personal liberty, which courts have interpreted to include the right to live with dignity, health and reproductive autonomy. 
• Article 39(f): Directs the State to ensure that children are given opportunities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. 
• Article 42: Directs the State to make provision for just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief. 

Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (as amended in 2017): 

• Maternity leave: Up to 26 weeks of paid leave for women with fewer than two surviving children, and 12 weeks for women with two or more children. 
• Adoptive and commissioning mothers: 12 weeks of maternity benefit for a woman adopting a child below three months of age, or a commissioning mother. 
• Work from home: May be permitted after maternity leave where the nature of work allows, on mutually agreed terms. 
• Creche facility: Mandatory for establishments with 50 or more employees, with the mother allowed four visits a day. 
• Nursing breaks: Two nursing breaks a day until the child attains 15 months of age. 

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989: 

• India ratified the Convention in 1992. 
• Article 3: The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children. 
• Article 24: Recognises the child’s right to the highest attainable standard of health, including access to knowledge on the advantages of breastfeeding. 

What is the Scope of Judicial Review in Transfer Matters? 

General principle: 

• Transfer is an incident of service, and an employee has no vested right to remain at a particular place. 
• Courts ordinarily do not interfere with transfer orders, as they fall within the domain of administrative discretion. 

Grounds for interference: 

• The transfer is mala fide or made for extraneous reasons. 
• It is in violation of a statutory provision or the applicable transfer policy. 
• It is made by an authority lacking competence. 
• It is arbitrary or violates fundamental rights, such as Article 21.