The Supreme Court of India on Friday declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking a nationwide policy granting menstrual leave for women students and employees. The court expressed concern that making such leave mandatory could negatively affect women’s employment prospects.
Chief Justice Surya Kant observed during the hearing that employers might become reluctant to hire women if a legal requirement for menstrual leave were introduced.
‘Employers May Avoid Hiring Women’: Chief Justice
During the proceedings, the Chief Justice cautioned that legislating compulsory menstrual leave could unintentionally harm women’s career opportunities.
According to the court, employers might view the policy as an added burden and avoid hiring female workers altogether. The bench also suggested that such a law could reinforce stereotypes about women’s capabilities in the workplace.
Petition Sought Leave for Students and Employees
The plea was filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who requested directions for state governments to frame rules allowing women—both students and working professionals—to take leave during menstruation.
However, the court stated that such petitions might create unnecessary fear and stigma around menstruation rather than addressing the issue constructively.
Court Warns Against Reinforcing Gender Stereotypes
The Chief Justice noted that mandating menstrual leave through legislation could create a perception that women are less capable than men. He added that while awareness and sensitisation about menstrual health are important, converting it into a compulsory legal provision may lead to unintended consequences.
The bench also warned that the move could generate a psychological impression among working women that they are seen as “less” than their male counterparts.
Existing Policies Highlighted During Hearing
During the hearing, senior advocate M. R. Shamshad pointed out that some institutions have already introduced menstrual leave policies on their own.
He cited a decision by the Government of Kerala in 2013 to grant menstrual leave for women students in state-run universities. The initiative was announced by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan as part of efforts to promote a more gender-just society.
Shamshad also noted that several private companies have introduced similar policies voluntarily.
Court Differentiates Between Voluntary and Mandatory Measures
The Chief Justice emphasised that voluntary policies are different from legally mandated requirements. According to the court, once such provisions become compulsory under law, employers might avoid hiring women for both public and private sector roles.
The bench warned that such a scenario could potentially affect women’s opportunities in government services, the judiciary, and other professions.
Earlier Ruling Recognised Menstrual Health as a Fundamental Right
In January, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling recognising menstrual hygiene as an essential component of a girl child’s right to life, dignity, health, and education.
A bench comprising J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stated that governments have a positive obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution to safeguard the health rights of girls and women.
Directions Issued to Improve Menstrual Health Facilities
As part of that ruling, the court directed governments across the country to ensure the availability of free sanitary napkins, functional gender-segregated toilets in schools, and awareness campaigns on menstrual health.
The decision underscored the need for improved menstrual hygiene infrastructure and education while highlighting the broader constitutional rights related to women’s health and dignity.
