The Supreme Court affirmed that providing Child Care Leave (CCL) to mothers of children with disabilities is a Constitutional duty. The Court emphasized the importance of this leave for ensuring equal opportunities for women in the workforce, particularly those caring for children with special needs.
NEW DELHI: Today (22nd April): The Supreme Court emphasized the Constitutional duty towards ensuring the equal participation of women in the workforce. The Court emphasized the significance of Child Care Leaves, particularly for mothers of children with disabilities.
READ ALSO: Bombay High Court Urges Action on Disability Rights in Maharashtra
The court declared that denying CCL to such mothers would violate their constitutional rights and urged the state government to revise its policies accordingly. A committee has been appointed to implement these reforms, with a report expected by July 31, 2024.
The Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala, issued a momentous ruling affirming the constitutional duty to promote gender equality in the workforce.
“Child Care Leave serves a vital Constitutional objective by ensuring women’s equal opportunities in the workforce. Denying CCL could force a mother to exit the workforce, especially if she has a child with special needs.”
Background
The matter followed after an assistant professor employed in a college in Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh. The professor was denied leave to care for her son, who had been suffering from genetic disorders since birth, as she had exhausted all her sanctioned leaves. The court recognized the gravity of the situation, acknowledging the petitioner’s reliance on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
“The Court emphasized the gravity of the matter raised in the petition, particularly concerning the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. Highlighting the absence of a Child Care Leave (CCL) policy, the Commissioner acknowledged on affidavit. The Court stressed that women’s participation in the workforce is not a matter of privilege but a constitutional mandate. As a model employer, the State cannot overlook this imperative.”
READ ALSO: PIL Challenges Exclusion of Disabled Persons from Judicial Appointments
Addressing the issue, the court emphasized that women’s participation in the workforce is not a privilege but a constitutional requirement. The state, as a model employer, cannot overlook this fundamental principle. The court further directed the Himachal Pradesh Government to review its CCL policy to ensure consistency with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016.
To facilitate the implementation of these reforms, the court ordered the formation of a committee. The committee, composed of the State’s Chief Secretary, the State Commissioner under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, and the Secretaries of the Department of Women and Child Development and the Social Welfare Department, will collaborate with the Secretary of the Central Government’s Social Welfare Department. Their objective is to prepare a comprehensive report by July 31, 2024.
“In essence, the plea touches upon policy domains, and State policies must align with Constitutional safeguards. The Court instructs the State of Himachal Pradesh to review the Child Care Leave (CCL) provisions for mothers in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, particularly for mothers caring for children with special needs.”
Recognizing the national implications of the case, the court also sought the response of the Central Government. The Union was requested to be included in the proceedings, with Assistant Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati providing assistance to the court.
The court highlighted that in 2010, the Central Government had already acknowledged the necessity of granting CCL to parents of differently abled children, removing the age-based restriction in subsequent revisions. Rule 43C of the Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1972 governed the provision of such child-care leaves.
The litigant, the assistant professor, had initially approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court for redress after being denied further leaves upon exhausting her sanctioned quota. Following the High Court’s dismissal of her plea, she appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
