The Supreme Court declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking a nationwide policy mandating menstrual leave for women students and employees, cautioning that making such leave compulsory through law could unintentionally damage women’s employment prospects and reinforce gender stereotypes.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the petition while directing the competent authority to examine the petitioner’s representation and take an appropriate decision after consultations with stakeholders.
The petition was filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who sought directions to the government to frame a uniform policy granting menstrual leave to women across educational institutions and workplaces. The petitioner argued that such a measure was necessary to uphold women’s dignity, health and equality under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life.
During the hearing, however, the bench expressed serious reservations about the possible consequences of introducing a legally enforceable right to menstrual leave.
Chief Justice Kant warned that employers might become reluctant to hire women if additional paid leave became a statutory requirement. He observed that once such provisions are mandated through law, employers may begin to view women as less employable.
“The moment you bring in a law mandating menstrual leave, nobody will hire them,” the Chief Justice said, cautioning that such a step could unintentionally harm women’s careers rather than strengthen workplace equality.
The court also raised concerns that making menstrual leave a legal entitlement could create a psychological perception that women are less capable than men. According to the Chief Justice, such a framework might reinforce the idea that menstruation is a limitation rather than a natural biological process.
Justice Bagchi agreed that while the cause of supporting women’s health and dignity was valid, the court also had to consider the practical realities of the job market. He observed that employers might hesitate to assign women significant responsibilities if they believed regular leave obligations would affect workplace productivity.
Chief Justice Kant further remarked that in professions such as judicial services, such perceptions could affect career opportunities, with women potentially being denied critical assignments such as trials.
Voluntary Policies Encouraged
During the proceedings, the bench distinguished between voluntary policies and legally mandated provisions.
Senior advocate M R Shamshad, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that several states and institutions had already introduced menstrual leave or similar relaxations. He cited the example of Kerala, where menstrual leave has been granted to women students in state-run universities.
He also referred to policies adopted by institutions such as NLIU Bhopal, MNLU Aurangabad and Punjab University, along with initiatives by several private companies that have voluntarily implemented menstrual leave provisions.
The bench acknowledged these developments and said voluntary initiatives by states, universities and companies were welcome. Chief Justice Kant noted that such measures, when introduced voluntarily, reflected institutional sensitivity towards women’s health needs.
Court Directs Authorities to Examine Representation
The court observed that the petitioner had already submitted a representation to the concerned authorities seeking the introduction of a menstrual leave policy.
It therefore disposed of the PIL and directed the competent authority to examine the representation and take an appropriate decision after consulting relevant stakeholders.
Growing Focus on Menstrual Health Rights
The debate around menstrual leave forms part of a broader discussion about recognising women’s health concerns in workplaces and educational institutions.
In January this year, the Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling recognising menstrual hygiene as an integral component of a girl child’s right to life, dignity, health and education. The court held that governments have a positive obligation under Article 21 to protect and promote the health rights of girls and women.
In that decision, authorities were directed to ensure the availability of free sanitary napkins, functional gender segregated toilets and widespread menstrual health awareness campaigns.
The observations highlight the complex policy challenge facing lawmakers as India continues to debate how best to address menstrual health while ensuring that women’s participation and opportunities in education and employment are not adversely affected.
