Discuss how judicial interpretation of welfare legislations like the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 can address the 'maternity penalty' faced by working women in India.

Article 42 of the Constitution directs the State to secure just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief [4]. Yet statutory text alone cannot reach the subtler "maternity penalty" — loss of role, authority and promotion after childbirth. Purposive judicial interpretation of welfare statutes is therefore decisive in converting formal entitlement into substantive workplace equality.

The nature of the 'maternity penalty'

• Beyond dismissal: women are rarely sacked outright; they are sidelined into lower-responsibility roles, as alleged in the Delhi High Court case of a chartered accountant reassigned after leave taken in December 2023 [3].
• Career stagnation: denial of managerial authority and promotion prospects imposes a lifelong earnings and seniority cost though pay may nominally continue.
• Macro cost: it depresses female labour force participation, which remained around 35% for those aged 15 and above in recent PLFS rounds, far below male participation [5].

How judicial interpretation addresses it

• Purposive reading of beneficial statutes: the Delhi High Court (August 31, 2026) held that Section 12 protection is not confined to job continuity and wages but extends to designation, responsibilities and advancement, so a returning woman resumes her previous position [1][3].
• Filling legislative silence: the Act prescribes 26 weeks' paid leave and crèche facilities [1][2] but defines no "equivalent position" standard; courts supply that content.
• Continuity across regimes: such interpretation carries into the Code on Social Security, 2020, which subsumes maternity benefits within the labour codes [6].
• Structural direction: the Court asked the Centre to frame safeguards, converting an individual remedy into systemic policy guidance [3].

Limits

• Relief is post-facto, costly and litigation-dependent; most private-sector violations go unchallenged.
• Enforcement machinery under the Act is thin, and employer-borne leave costs create hiring disincentives for women.

Judicial creativity thus supplies the interpretive floor, but durable change needs codified rules on role-equivalence, strengthened inspections, shared or State-funded leave costs and parental (not merely maternal) leave. Read with Article 42 and SDG-5, such convergence of bench and executive can make motherhood compatible with career progression.