Home
+
Published : 29 Jun 2026, 07:04 PM
The High Court has issued a rule questioning the legality of provisions that restrict maternity leave and benefits for working women.
The court asked why the restrictions should not be declared unconstitutional for being inconsistent with the Constitution, and why different maternity leave entitlements for women in the public and private sectors should not be struck down.
The rule was issued on Monday by a High Court bench of Justice Fahmida Quader and Justice Md Asif Hasan after hearing a writ petition challenging the validity of the existing legal provisions.
The petition was filed on Jun 15 by Supreme Court lawyer Ishrat Hasan, naming 12 respondents, including the cabinet secretary and the law secretary.
Speaking after the hearing, Ishrat said the petition seeks to ensure equal and non-discriminatory maternity rights for all working women.
The writ petition challenges provisions of the Labour Act and the Bangladesh Service Rules governing government employees.
Under the Labour Act, a woman is not entitled to maternity leave or benefits unless she has worked at the organisation for at least six months before childbirth.
Those employed for less than six months are ineligible, regardless of whether it is their first, second or subsequent child.
The law also provides that if a woman already has two living children at the time of delivery, she is not entitled to maternity leave for a third child.
Similarly, the Bangladesh Service Rules limit paid maternity leave for government employees to two occasions during their entire service, excluding a third childbirth.
Ishrat argued that maternity leave is a necessity rather than a reward, saying the physical risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth remain, and may even increase, with subsequent pregnancies.
She also said a child should not be deprived of maternal care simply because they are a third child, noting that exclusive breastfeeding for at least six months is essential for healthy physical and mental development.
Describing the existing provisions as discriminatory, she argued that they effectively expect working mothers to return to work immediately after childbirth, despite their medical and childcare needs.
