A Woman’s Dignity vs A Giant Corporation — The Neera Mathur Story

In the early 1990s, a young and qualified woman named Neera Mathur applied for a job with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), one of the country’s most prestigious public sector organizations.

She cleared the written exams, aced the interviews, and was offered the job. Like all candidates, she had to fill out a detailed declaration form. One question on the form caught her off guard:

"Are you pregnant? If yes, how many months?"

Feeling uncomfortable and shocked, Neera still filled in the form and joined the job.

Soon after, she availed maternity leave as she was, in fact, pregnant. This decision triggered a storm.

LIC claimed that Neera had concealed her pregnancy, accusing her of dishonesty. They terminated her employment, saying she was physically unfit and untruthful at the time of appointment.

Neera was stunned. She had been a meritorious candidate. Was being pregnant a crime? Did that mean women had to choose between motherhood and a career?

Determined to fight back, she took her case to the Supreme Court of India.

---

In Court: A Battle for Rights

Neera argued that:

Her right to privacy had been violated.

The LIC’s form was discriminatory and intrusive, particularly towards women.

Her termination was unjust and based on a personal, natural circumstance — pregnancy.

The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, ruled in her favor.

The Court observed:

“It is unfortunate that a female candidate is required to disclose personal details like pregnancy. Such questions amount to an invasion of privacy and are unconstitutional.”

---

The Impact

This judgment became a watershed moment in India’s employment and gender justice landscape. It led to:

Greater protection for pregnant women in employment.

Public sector organizations reviewing their hiring practices.

Establishing that pregnancy cannot be grounds for discrimination.

Conclusion:

Neera Mathur’s courage changed the rules for generations of working women in India. Her case is a reminder that even a single voice can challenge systemic bias, and justice—though sometimes delayed—is worth the fight.