The Delhi High Court has ruled that a woman returning from maternity leave at a private company is ordinarily entitled to resume her previous position or an equivalent position carrying substantially the same pay, status, seniority, responsibilities, managerial authority, decision-making functions, promotional opportunities, and prospects of career advancement.

A recent plea by wrestler Vinesh Phogat raises a similar question in professional sport.

For years, maternity protection in the workplace has largely been understood in terms of a woman’s right to take leave without losing her job or salary. But what happens when she returns?

What is the background?

The petitioner, a chartered accountant with around 14 years of experience, joined the company as a manager, accounting in June 2022, with a monthly salary of ₹2.6 lakh.

She said that she informed the company about her pregnancy in May 2023, after which she was transferred to another team. She accepted the transfer, believing the company’s assurance that she would be restored to her original role after maternity leave.

She went on maternity leave in December 2023 and returned in July 2024. However, she was told that there was no position available in her original team and was instead assigned to the treasury department. She said the new role was substantially different from the managerial accounting position she had held earlier.

The petitioner alleged that the reassignment amounted to pregnancy- and maternity-based discrimination, effectively reducing her professional responsibilities and affecting her career opportunities. She therefore approached the Delhi High Court, alleging a violation of the protections available to women returning from maternity leave.

What did the Delhi High Court hold?

The single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta observed, “Given the statutory framework, it is held that every woman employee returning from maternity leave shall ordinarily be entitled to reinstatement in the same position held by her immediately before proceeding on maternity leave. Where such reinstatement is genuinely impracticable, she shall be placed in an equivalent position carrying substantially the same pay, status, seniority, responsibilities, managerial authority, decision-making functions, promotional opportunities, and prospects of career advancement. Any reassignment resulting in material changes in responsibilities, authority, status, or professional growth solely on account of pregnancy or maternity leave shall be presumed to be discriminatory unless justified by compelling and bona fide reasons unrelated to maternity.”

“A woman returning from maternity leave is ordinarily entitled to be restored to the post held by her immediately before proceeding on such leave. Where, for bona fide and demonstrable organisational reasons, the post is no longer available, she is entitled to be placed in a position as nearly equivalent to it as possible in terms of pay, grade, status, role, responsibilities, managerial authority, and prospects for advancement,” it added.

The court noted that the allegations directly implicate the guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 15, the right to dignity and livelihood under Article 21, and the constitutional commitment to maternity protection reflected in Article 42.

The key provision before the court was Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

The provision prohibits an employer from varying, to a woman’s disadvantage, the conditions of her service during the statutorily protected period.

The court said that if an employer plans to make a significant change to an employee’s responsibilities, pay, grade, reporting structure, team or workplace while she is on maternity leave, it must inform her in advance and explain the reason for the change.

The court directed the employer to pay the petitioner ₹10 lakh as compensation and ₹1.5 lakh as costs, after finding that her statutory protection had been violated.

What is Vinesh Phogat’s plea?

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (September 1, 2026) sought the response of the Centre, the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) and the Indian Olympic Association on a petition by wrestler Vinesh Phogat, seeking a structured framework to facilitate the return of women athletes to competitive sports after pregnancy and maternity leave.

Senior advocate Rajshekhar Rao, appearing for Ms. Phogat, said: “This is a larger question about lady athletes, maternity leave and impact on their ability to participate in the sport.” Mr. Rao pointed out that international standards provide certain benefits and protection of rankings to athletes who take maternity leave.

In the plea, Ms. Phogat sought directions for the formulation of a fair and structured framework for women athletes returning from maternity, transparent and objectively verifiable selection and nomination processes, as well as an alternative mechanism for athletes disadvantaged by maternity-related absences.

According to the plea, the eligibility criteria relied on performances in tournaments held during her maternity period, effectively penalising her for an absence over which she had no control, instead of providing an alternative route for her return to competition.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued the notice on the plea and listed the matter for further hearing on November 18. The petition is at an initial stage and the HC is yet to decide on its merits.