In a significant judgment reinforcing women’s reproductive and workplace rights, the Kerala High Court has held that maternity leave cannot be treated at par with ordinary or discretionary leave to cancel the candidature of a medical trainee. Granting relief to a National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) trainee, the Court ruled that rigid application of leave rules in extraordinary circumstances would defeat both constitutional values and basic fairness.
The decision sends a strong message to academic and professional bodies: maternity is not a liability, and pregnancy cannot be penalised under the guise of administrative discipline.
The Case at a Glance
The petitioner, a doctor selected through the NEET Super Specialty (NEET-SS) examination for a DrNB course, had already completed her MBBS and MD. During the course of her training, she faced two life-altering events almost simultaneously:
- Pregnancy, requiring maternity leave
- Diagnosis of Stage IV lymphoma cancer, necessitating prolonged medical treatment
While she availed maternity leave of 184 days, along with other permissible leave, her total leave initially stood at 207 days. However, cancer treatment forced her to remain away from training for nearly 195 additional days, pushing her overall leave period beyond the limit prescribed under NBEMS rules.
When she sought permission to resume training with an extension, NBEMS refused, warning that her candidature would be cancelled since her leave exceeded one year.
The Regulatory Roadblock: NBEMS Leave Rules
NBEMS relied on Clause 7(c) of the Comprehensive Leave Rules, 2024, which provides that if a trainee avails leave exceeding one year during the training period, the candidature is liable to be cancelled.
According to NBEMS:
- The rules were binding and uniformly applicable
- Leave beyond one year was impermissible
- The matter involved academic discretion, where courts traditionally do not interfere
On paper, the Board’s position reflected regulatory discipline. In practice, however, it raised a deeper constitutional question: can maternity leave be treated like any other leave, especially when combined with grave illness?
Petitioner’s Argument: Rules Cannot Override Fundamental Rights
The trainee challenged NBEMS’s decision before the Kerala High Court, arguing that:
- The 2024 rules were not in force when she joined the course
- Maternity leave is a statutory and constitutional right, not a discretionary benefit
- Her medical leave due to cancer was involuntary and unavoidable
- A mechanical application of the one-year cap would result in grave injustice
She sought:
- Permission to avail special leave
- Extension of her training period
- Protection against cancellation of her candidature
Court’s Approach: Extraordinary Case, Extraordinary Relief
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while acknowledging that courts generally refrain from interfering in academic matters, made it clear that this was not an ordinary case.
The Court held that when rigid rules collide with fundamental human realities such as pregnancy and life-threatening illness, a purely technical approach cannot prevail.
The judgment emphasised that:
- Academic regulations exist to facilitate education, not to destroy careers
- Equality and dignity under constitutional law cannot be reduced to arithmetic calculations of leave
Maternity Leave: A Right, Not a Discretion
The most important aspect of the ruling is the Court’s clear declaration that maternity leave stands on a different legal footing from ordinary leave.
The Court observed that:
- Even independent of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, a woman possesses an inherent right to reasonable maternity leave
- This right includes time for pregnancy, childbirth, and postnatal recuperation
- A female postgraduate trainee cannot be excluded from this protection
Crucially, the Court ruled that maternity leave cannot be clubbed with regular or discretionary leave for the purpose of cancelling candidature.
This distinction is vital. While regular leave is a matter of administrative discretion, maternity leave flows from gender justice and bodily autonomy.
Why the One-Year Rule Could Not Be Applied Pedantically
NBEMS argued that allowing an exception would dilute the rules. The Court rejected this reasoning, noting that:
- The petitioner’s maternity leave and medical leave occurred in the same year due to exceptional circumstances
- Applying the one-year cap mechanically would amount to penalising pregnancy and illness
- Rules must be interpreted contextually, not punitively
The Court clarified that the general principle of termination after one year of leave cannot be applied blindly to rare and extreme cases.
Relief Granted by the High Court
Instead of striking down the NBEMS rules, the Court adopted a balanced approach. It directed that:
- The petitioner be allowed to submit a fresh leave application
- NBEMS must consider the request in light of the peculiar facts of the case
- The petitioner’s candidature shall not be terminated in the meantime
By doing so, the Court preserved institutional autonomy while ensuring that human dignity and equality were not sacrificed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling has implications far beyond one trainee’s case.
1. Gender Justice in Medical Education
Medical training is notoriously demanding, and women often face structural disadvantages. This judgment affirms that motherhood cannot be treated as professional misconduct.
2. Limits of Administrative Rigidity
The Court reaffirmed that rules are meant to serve justice, not replace it. Exceptional cases demand humane interpretation.
3. Constitutional Values in Academic Governance
The judgment aligns academic regulations with Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution — equality, non-discrimination, and dignity.
4. Protection Against Career Erasure
Cancelling years of academic effort due to pregnancy and illness would amount to institutional cruelty, which courts cannot endorse.
Conclusion: Law That Recognises Human Reality
The Kerala High Court’s ruling is a reminder that legal systems must account for life as it is lived, not as it appears in rulebooks. By holding that maternity leave is a right that cannot be neutralised through technicalities, the Court has reinforced a crucial principle: women do not have to choose between motherhood and professional survival.
As medical institutions and regulatory bodies revisit their leave frameworks, this judgment stands as a constitutional checkpoint against policies that, however neutral in form, operate harshly in effect.
Also Read
Access To Justice In Uniform: Supreme Court Holds AFT Can Hear POSH Appeals Against ICC Reports
