Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal

Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal
Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Full case name	Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal &Ors.
Decided	16 August 2022
Citations	C.A. No 5308/2022 ;
Court membership
Judges sitting	D. Y. Chandrachud, J.; and A. S. Bopanna, J.
Case opinions
	Atypical families are deserving of equal protection under law and benefits available under social welfare legislation.
Decision by	D. Y. Chandrachud and A. S. Bopanna

Last updated September 25, 2024

Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal &Ors.(2022) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that widens the definition of 'family' under Indian law.^[1]

Background

Deepika Singh, who worked as a nurse at a government medical institute, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) in Chandigarh, was denied her application for maternity leave after she gave birth. The employer stated the reason for denying her maternity leave as her previous maternity leave to care for her husband's children from a previous marriage. The two children belonged to her husband's first marriage.^[1]^[2]

Her request for an allowance under the 2013 Central Civil Service Rules' provisions for maternity leave was denied by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Punjab and Haryana High Court.^[2]

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that a woman's statutory right to take maternity leave cannot be restricted because she previously used child care leave for her non-biological children.^[2]

While ruling in the favor of petitioner, Justice Chandrachud and Justice Bopanna noted that the predominant understanding of the concept of a "family" both in the law and in society ignores both, the many circumstances which may lead to a change in one‟s familial structure, and the fact that many families do not conform to this expectation to begin with.^[3]

Familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships. A household may be a single parent household for any number of reasons, including the death of a spouse, separation, or divorce. Similarly, the guardians and caretakers (who traditionally occupy the roles of the "mother" and the "father") of children may change with remarriage, adoption, or fostering. These manifestations of love and of families may not be typical but they are as real as their traditional counterparts.
— Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice A. S. Bopanna, Paragraph 26, Page Number 19-20

Further, the Justices note that such atypical families are deserving of equal protection under law guaranteed in the Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and benefits available under social welfare legislation.^[3]

Significance

The ruling expands the definition of 'family' in Indian law to include unmarried partnerships, queer relationships and single parent families.^[1]

Related Research Articles

The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of the Republic of India. It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It also has the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges, has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) (ISO: Bhārat kē Mukhya Nyāyādhīśa) is the highest-ranking officer of the Indian judiciary and the chief judge of the Supreme Court of India. The Constitution of India grants power to the President of India to appoint, as recommended by the outgoing chief justice in consultation with other judges as envisaged in Article 124 (2) of the Constitution, the next chief justice, who will serve until they reach the age of 65 or are removed by the constitutional process of impeachment.

Capital punishment in India is a legal penalty for some crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution per Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is imposed only in the 'rarest of cases'.

Section 377 is a British colonial penal code that criminalized all sexual acts "against the order of nature". The law was used to prosecute people engaging in oral and anal sex along with homosexual activity. As per a Supreme Court Judgement since 2018, the Indian Penal Code Section 377 is used to convict non-consensual sexual activities among homosexuals with a minimum of ten years’ imprisonment extended to life imprisonment. It has been used to criminalize third gender people, such as the apwint in Myanmar. In 2018, then British Prime Minister Theresa May acknowledged how the legacies of such British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and even death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Y. V. Chandrachud</span> 16th Chief Justice of India from 1978 to 1985

Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud was an Indian jurist who served as the 16th Chief Justice of India, serving from 22 February 1978 until 11 July 1985. Born in Pune in the Bombay Presidency, he was first appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court of India on 28 August 1972 and is the longest-serving Chief Justice in India's history at 7 years and 4 months. His nickname was Iron Hands after his well-regarded unwillingness to let anything slip past him.

Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud is an Indian jurist, who is the 50th and current chief justice of India serving since November 2022. He was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of India in May 2016. He has also previously served as the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court from 2013 to 2016 and as a judge of the Bombay High Court from 2000 to 2013. He is ex-officio Patron-in-Chief of the National Legal Services Authority and the de facto Chancellor of the National Law School of India University.

Jagdish Sharan Verma was an Indian jurist who served as the 27th Chief Justice of India from 25 March 1997 to 18 January 1998. He was the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission from 1999 to 2003, and chairman of the Justice Verma Committee Report on Amendments to Criminal Law after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. He remains one of India's most highly regarded Chief Justices and eminent jurists in its history.

India does not recognise same-sex marriage, civil unions or other forms of partnerships, but provides some limited legal recognition to cohabiting same-sex couples in the form of live-in relationships. Several same-sex couples have married in traditional Hindu ceremonies since the late 1980s; however, these marriages are not registered with the state and couples do not enjoy all the same rights and benefits as married opposite-sex couples. The Supreme Court of India in August 2022 provided social security rights to those in same-sex live-in relationships while also recognising same-sex couples as being part of a "family unit".

Laxmi Agarwal is an Indian acid attack survivor, a campaigner for rights of acid attack victims, and a TV host. Laxmi is founder and President of The Laxmi Foundation, an NGO dedicated to acid attack victims. She is a former director of Chhanv Foundation. She was attacked at the age of 15.

Karuna Nundy is an Indian lawyer and Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India, designated as a Senior Advocate in 2024. She is qualified to practice in both India and New York. Her notable cases include enforcing blockchain regulations on behalf of Paytm against telecom companies, securing damages for a disability rights activist against SpiceJet, and addressing issues related to platform liability and online speech restrictions. She has also worked on efforts to provide safe water to Bhopal gas disaster victims. Her practice areas include constitutional law, commercial litigation, arbitration, intellectual property, technology law, and international law. She also serves as a mediator at the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. (2017), also known as the Right to Privacy verdict, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, which holds that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The original petitioner Justice K.S. Puttaswamy was former judge of the Karnataka High Court

Navtej Singh Johar &Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice (2018) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that decriminalised all consensual sex among adults, including homosexual sex.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2022.

Rohit Sagar &Anr. versus State of Uttarakhand &Ors.(2021), a decision of the Uttarakhand High Court, established the right of legal adults to select their own partners and instructed the police to ensure the couple's safety and safeguard their property.

Chinmayee Jena versus State of Odisha &Ors.(2020) is case where the Orissa High Court upheld the right of self-determination of gender as an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression. The court recognized the rights of trans persons to cohabit with the partner of their choice, regardless of the “gender” of the partner.

Adhila Nasarin versus State Commissioner of Police &Ors.(2022) is case where Kerala High Court held that the adults in mutually consenting relationship should be allowed to live their lives according to their informed choice, regardless of gender.

Sreeja S versus Commissioner of Police &Ors.(2018) is case where Kerala High Court held that separating the adults in a consensual relationship is a violation of the Constitutional right, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Ujjawal &Anr. versus State of Haryana&Ors.(2021), a case where Punjab and Haryana High Court, refused to provide police protection to a couple facing threat to their lives and personal liberty, citing potential disruption to "social fabric of the society."

Supriyo a.k.a Supriya Chakraborty & Abhay Dang v. Union of India thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice & other connected cases (2023) are a collection of landmark cases of the Supreme Court of India, which were filed to consider whether to extend right to marry and establish a family to sexual and gender minority individuals in India. A five-judge Constitution Bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice S.R Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice P.S. Narasimha, heard 20 connected cases brought by 52 petitioners.

References

1 2 3 Schmall, Emily; Kumar, Hari (2022-08-30). "India's Supreme Court Widens Definition of 'Family'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved 2022-09-23.
1 2 3 Network, L. I. (2022-08-17). "SC: Woman's Right to Maternity Leave can't be Denied for having Availed Child Care Leave Earlier for Non-Biological Kids". Law Insider India. Retrieved 2022-09-23.
1 2 Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors., Civil Appeal No 5308 of 2022 ( Supreme Court of India 16 August 2022).

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[:0-1] 1 2 3 Schmall, Emily; Kumar, Hari (2022-08-30). "India's Supreme Court Widens Definition of 'Family'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved 2022-09-23.

[:1-2] 1 2 3 Network, L. I. (2022-08-17). "SC: Woman's Right to Maternity Leave can't be Denied for having Availed Child Care Leave Earlier for Non-Biological Kids". Law Insider India. Retrieved 2022-09-23.

[:2-3] 1 2 Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors., Civil Appeal No 5308 of 2022 ( Supreme Court of India 16 August 2022).

[1]

[2]

[3]