GayeKirkpatrick at 04:41, 26 October 2025

2025-10-26T04:41:00Z

New page

{{Short description|Indian Case Law}}
{{Infobox court case
| name = Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal
| court = [[Supreme Court of India]]
| image =
| imagesize =
| imagelink =
| imagealt =
| caption =
| full name = Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal {{Abbr|&|and}} {{Abbr|Ors.|Others}}
| date decided = 16 August 2022
| citations = {{URL|1=https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/12450/12450_2021_3_28_37306_Judgement_16-Aug-2022.pdf|2={{Abbr|C.A. No|Civil Appeal Number}} 5308/2022}}
| ECLI =
| transcripts =
| judges = [[D. Y. Chandrachud]], {{Abbr|J.|Justice}}; and [[A. S. Bopanna]], {{Abbr|J.|Justice}}
| number of judges = 2
| decision by = [[D. Y. Chandrachud]] and [[A. S. Bopanna]]
| appealed to =
| opinions = Atypical families are deserving of equal protection under law and benefits available under social welfare legislation.
}}
'''Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal {{Abbr|&|and}} {{Abbr|Ors.|Others}}''' '''(2022)''' is a [[List of landmark court decisions in India|landmark decision]] of the [[Supreme Court of India]] that widens the definition of 'family' under Indian law.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last1=Schmall |first1=Emily |last2=Kumar |first2=Hari |date=2022-08-30 |title=India's Supreme Court Widens Definition of 'Family' |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/30/world/asia/india-supreme-court-same-sex.html |access-date=2022-09-23 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

== 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 they denied her maternity leave because she had previously taken maternity leave to care for her husband's children from a previous marriage. The two children belonged to her husband's first marriage.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Network |first=L. I. |date=2022-08-17 |title=SC: Woman's Right to Maternity Leave can't be Denied for having Availed Child Care Leave Earlier for Non-Biological Kids |url=https://www.lawinsider.in/news/sc-womans-right-to-maternity-leave-cant-be-denied-for-having-availed-child-care-leave-earlier-for-non-biological-kids |access-date=2022-09-23 |website=Law Insider India |language=en-US}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":1" />

== 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.<ref name=":1" />

While ruling in favor of the petitioner, Justice [[Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud|Chandrachud]] and Justice [[A. S. Bopanna|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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite court|litigants=Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.|court=[[Supreme Court of India]]|opinion=Civil Appeal No 5308 of 2022|date=16 August 2022|url=https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/12450/12450_2021_3_28_37306_Judgement_16-Aug-2022.pdf}}</ref> {{Blockquote|text=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.|author=Justice [[Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud|D. Y. Chandrachud]] and Justice [[A. S. Bopanna]]|source=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 Constitution of India|Article 14 of the Indian Constitution]] and benefits available under social welfare legislation.<ref name=":2" />

== Significance ==
The ruling expands the definition of “family” in Indian law to include unmarried partnerships, queer relationships, and single-parent families.<ref name=":0" />

== See also ==

* [[LGBT rights in India]]
* [[Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India|Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)]]
* [[Right to Privacy verdict|Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union Of India (2017)]]
* [[National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India|National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014)]]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}{{LGBT Rights Case Law in India|state=expanded}}
[[Category:LGBTQ rights in India]]
[[Category:Indian LGBTQ rights case law]]
[[Category:2022 in LGBTQ history]]
[[Category:Indian family law]]
[[Category:Supreme Court of India cases in 2022]]
[[Category:2022 in Indian case law]]

Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal - Revision history

GayeKirkpatrick at 04:41, 26 October 2025