Today is Mother’s Day 2025. Everyone is celebrating, cutting cakes, bringing flowers and gifts for their mothers. It is the day when Social media is bombarded with photos of mothers, shared by their sons and daughters. Since Lawgical Shots is a platform for legal awareness and education, we had a different thought. Why not compile some Supreme Court rulings that empower motherhood? Because even though mothers are the strongest when it comes to fighting the world for their child, there are times when they have to fight the laws. At times, in situations usual or unexpected, the Supreme Court strengthened the laws for mothers, as discussed below..
Supreme Court Rulings empowering Motherhood
Rights of Breastfeeding Mothers
This happened in the case of Maatr Sparsh An Initiative by Avyaan Foundation v. Union of India (Order dated Feb 19, 2025). The Supreme Court Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice PB Varale was dealing with a writ petition seeking construction of feeding rooms, child care rooms and other related facilities for nursing mothers and infants. The Court discussed the importance of breast-feeding and acknowledged that “It is an integral part of a woman’s reproductive process and is essential for the health and well-being of both mother and the child.” While pointing towards the inextricable link of the right of a child to be breast-fed with the mother, the Court also upheld her right to breast-feed her child and stood against the stigmatization at public places and workplaces.
Since an advisory has already been issued by the Union Govt., the Court directed the Union to incorporate the same while reminding the States and UTs for compliance. For public buildings under construction or planning, the Court suggested the Union to ensure space for child care/nursing rooms.
Motherhood through Surrogacy
In the case of Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India, the woman suffered from Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) Syndrome, which caused the absence of her uterus and ovaries. Due to this, she was unable to get pregnant naturally, or even have her own eggs for assisted reproductive treatment, and wished to proceed with surrogacy. However, some Surrogacy Rules prevented her from the path of motherhood. The Court in this case stayed the applicability of specific parts of the Surrogacy Rules to the petitioner and found her entitled to proceed with surrogacy procedure.
Child Care Leave a Fundamental Right
In Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh (order dated April 22, 2024), the Supreme Court discussed about child care leaves and the connect with Constitution of India. The mother in this case was an Assistant Professor whose 14-year-old son suffered from a rare genetic disorder Osteogenesis Imperfecta. The child underwent several surgeries since birth and requires continuous treatment. Due to this, his mother has exhausted all her sanctioned leaves. Thus, the mother approached the Court with a writ petition seeking directions for adoption of provision for Child Care Leave which was deleted by the State.
The Court took the opportunity to make it clear that child care leaves served a constitutional object to keep women in the workforce. The Court further noted the situation of a mother who has a child with special needs. Thus, the Court directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to reconsider the entire aspect of the grant of Child Care Leave to mothers, especially those having children with special needs.
Family Pension for Step-Mother
In a recent case, the Supreme Court questioned the Indian Air Force regarding denial of pension benefits of a step-mother. The said step-mother had been raising the deceased officer-son since the age of 6 years. The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh gave an example that “If a baby is born and the biological mother passes away and the father marries again, and the step-mother brings him up right from the time when the child requires breastfeeding, and then becomes an army officer, air force and navy. If she has really looked after that child, is she not his mother?” The Court concluded that “Mother” was a very wide term and sought to examine the matter further.
Unwed Mother as Sole Guardian without Father’s Permit
In case of Karuna Purti v. State of NCT of Delhi (decided on July 6, 2015), the Supreme Court discussed whether it was crucial for an unwed mother to notify the child’s father for appointment as the guardian of her child. The Court noted that the woman was well-educated, employed and financially secure. The woman gave birth in 2010 and raised the child without any assistance or involvement of the putative father. To proceed with nomination for insurance policies, etc. the woman was informed that she must either declare the father’s name, or get a guardianship/adoption certificate from the Court. This in turn required a notice to be sent to the said father.
The mother was strongly averse to naming the father, but issued a notice to the general public in a National Daily. The Court recognized the father’s right to be involved, but eyeing at the lack of involvement in the child’s life, the Court sought not to prioritize the father’s rights over the rights of mother and her child. Thus, the Court allowed the mother’s appeal and directed the Guardian Court to consider the guardianship application expeditiously, in the absence of a notice given to the putative father of the child.
Conclusion
While the Supreme Court rulings on motherhood reflect the different shades of mothers, the feeling is similar. A childless woman may be looking forward to giving her child all the happiness that exists, an unwed mother makes sure her child does not feel the absence of a father, a step-mother may be afraid of the world, but finds God in her step-child’s face. Motherhood is different yet all the way similar. So today, this is our tribute to mothers all over the world, who fight others, even the laws, for the welfare of their child.
