Rakhi Bisht’s return to work after maternity leave was intended to mark her reintegration into the professional landscape she had cultivated over 14 years. However, upon her return to HashiCorp in July 2024, she discovered that her previous position had been reassigned.
A chartered accountant by profession, Bisht began her journey with the software firm as an accounting manager in June 2022, earning a monthly salary of Rs 2.6 lakh. Following her maternity leave that commenced in December 2023, she was surprised to find herself reassigned to the company’s treasury department. The responsibilities she was given resembled those of a staff accountant, a role significantly lower than her former position and largely clerical in nature.
In October 2024, Bisht decided to resign and subsequently filed a petition with the Delhi High Court, requesting Rs 50 lakh in compensation and the establishment of stringent anti-discrimination policies for private companies.
On August 31, the High Court ordered HashiCorp to compensate Bisht with Rs 10 lakh.
Justice Sachin Datta emphasized in his ruling that maternity should never be a source of shame within the workplace. He stated that a thorough interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 21, and 42 of the Constitution clearly indicates that pregnancy and maternity cannot serve as justifications for professional setbacks, demotions, or hindrances to career advancement. Such actions not only violate existing protections for female employees but also compromise the constitutional principles of equality, dignity, and social justice.
In her court application, Bisht noted that she was told there were no available positions in her original team, and the new role she was given did not align with her managerial accounting background. She argued that the tasks assigned to her in the treasury department significantly devalued her qualifications, professional experience, and reputation.
The court remarked that neither the Maternity Benefit Act of 1961 nor the Code on Social Security of 2020 provides a detailed framework for reintegrating women into the workforce after maternity leave. It cautioned that the lack of such a framework could hinder the effective application of existing constitutional and statutory protections. Justice Datta further stated that the law should not be interpreted in a way that allows for superficial compliance that undermines substantive rights.
The court asserted that a woman returning from maternity leave is typically entitled to resume her previous position. If, for valid organizational reasons, that position is no longer available, she should be placed in a role as similar as possible in terms of pay, status, responsibilities, and opportunities for advancement. Justice Datta also indicated that employers must provide a rationale for the unavailability of the original position and disclose details about the alternative role, including its level, salary, reporting structure, and responsibilities. Should the employee raise objections, these concerns must be addressed, and the employer is required to explain their decision.
The court mandated HashiCorp, a private software firm recently acquired by IBM, to develop policies or protocols addressing workplace accommodations related to pregnancy, ensuring the protection of roles and status after maternity leave, as well as provisions for lactation support, childcare facilities, grievance resolution timelines, and safeguards against retaliation. This initiative is to be completed within six months.
Additionally, the High Court acknowledged recommendations from Union government Standing Counsel Ashish K Dixit, which included a proposal for a “protected period” for female employees that would extend from the initial announcement of pregnancy until six months after their return to work. Under these proposed guidelines, employers would be required to conduct personalized assessments within a week of pregnancy disclosure to provide appropriate workplace accommodations without necessitating leave or relegating employees to inferior roles.
Along with the Rs 10 lakh compensation, the court instructed the company to pay Bisht an additional Rs 1.5 lakh in costs within two months.
Nirbhay Thakur serves as a Senior Correspondent with The Indian Express, primarily covering district courts in Delhi. He has reported extensively on several high-profile cases since 2023.
Professional Background: Nirbhay holds a degree in economics from Delhi University. His reporting focuses on trial courts, and he occasionally conducts interviews with ambassadors while showing a particular interest in data-driven stories.
Specializations: His expertise lies in data narratives concerning the judiciary.
Core Strength: Nirbhay is recognized for his diligent tracking of lengthy legal proceedings and providing comprehensive coverage of notable criminal trials.
Recent Noteworthy Articles: In 2025, he produced long-form articles and two investigative pieces. He has broken numerous court stories and has published various exclusive reports.
1) A detailed examination of Surender Koli, accused in the infamous Nithari serial killings of 2006, who was acquitted after spending two decades in prison. Once labeled a “cannibal” for allegedly luring children to his employer’s residence in Noida, murdering them, and consuming their flesh, Koli’s case was cited as an example of extreme human depravity. However, the Supreme Court acquitted him due to significant flaws in the investigation, and The Indian Express explored his two-decade-long journey through the legal system.
2) For years, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) has consistently ranked high in the Government’s national standings, maintaining the second position for the past two years. It has also been a hub for campus activism, with its protests often igniting national conversations, and its student leaders becoming prominent figures in various political parties. The Indian Express has reviewed all legal cases related to the university spanning over two decades.
