Recently, the Madras High Court made a significant declaration that the Right to Life of a child is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, denying or canceling paternity leave for a father could be seen as a violation of Article 21.

The case was heard before the single-headed bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri seeking to quash an order issued by the first respondent. The petitioner sought to direct the respondents to reinstate them as the Inspector of Police at the Kadayam Police Station in the Tenkasi District.

Case Brief -

In this particular case, the petitioner held the position of Inspector of Police at the Kadayam Police Station in the Tirunelveli District. The petitioner's wife became pregnant through the In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) method.

During an IVF procedure, a woman requires special care to ensure a safe and risk-free delivery. Consequently, the petitioner found themselves in a situation where, in addition to fulfilling their professional responsibilities, they were compelled to provide special care and support to their pregnant wife.

As a result of these circumstances, the petitioner submitted a formal leave request to the second respondent. This leave request sought paternity leave for a duration of 90 days, from May 1, 2023, to July 29, 2023, to enable the petitioner to fulfill their duties as a husband and support their wife during this critical period.

the second respondent initially granted the petitioner paternity leave from May 1, 2023, to July 29, 2023, due to the critical circumstances surrounding the pregnancy of the petitioner's wife. However, on April 30, 2023, just before the leave period was set to begin, the second respondent abruptly revoked the leave, citing a law and order issue in the Kadayam locality.

The petitioner's wife's delivery was scheduled for May 30, 2023, as advised by doctors. The petitioner promptly filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his leave order, and the court disposed of the petition.

Unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances, the delivery date was extended, and the petitioner's wife gave birth to their child on May 31, 2023. Consequently, the petitioner was unable to return to duty on May 31, 2023, but he did send a WhatsApp message to the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, explaining his absence and requesting an extension of leave.

On June 22, 2023, the impugned desertion order was issued, directing the petitioner to appear before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Circle, within 60 days from the commencement of the desertion and submit an explanation. The 60-day period expired on July 29, 2023.

The High Court recognized the unique circumstances of this case, where a devoted husband sought paternity leave to care for his pregnant wife during a complicated IVF-assisted pregnancy. The competent authority should have granted the requested leave from May 1, 2023, to June 15, 2023, but instead, the petitioner was permitted to take unearned leave for private affairs only from May 1, 2023, to May 30, 2023. Despite the Superintendent of Police being aware that the petitioner was unable to return to duty due to his wife's complicated delivery, the impugned desertion order was issued.

The bench emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life of a child. This right extends from prenatal care days, beginning with the mother's pregnancy, and continues through postnatal care until the child reaches adulthood. Both the mother and father play essential roles during the prenatal and postnatal care phases, which are crucial for the child's right to survival. A welfare state has a duty to provide dignified prenatal care and proper healthcare, hygiene, and sanitation during postnatal care to ensure the well-being of the fetus and child.