New Delhi, March 13, 2026: The Supreme Court of India on Friday refused to direct a nationwide mandatory policy on menstrual leave for women students and employees, cautioning that legislating such a provision could unintentionally harm women’s employment prospects and reinforce harmful gender stereotypes.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who sought directions to the Centre, states and Union Territories to frame a uniform law granting paid menstrual leave across educational institutions and workplaces.
Senior advocate M R Shamshad, appearing for the petitioner, highlighted voluntary initiatives already in place — such as relaxations introduced in Kerala educational institutions and menstrual leave policies adopted by some private companies. He urged the court to make such provisions mandatory through legislation.
The Chief Justice, however, expressed strong reservations. “Creating awareness and sensitisation is different… but the moment you bring in a law mandating menstrual leave, nobody will hire them (women),” Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked. He added: “You don’t know the mindset of employers. They will not hire women if we make such a law.”
The bench further observed that a compulsory law could create “a psychological fear or impression among working women… that they are ‘less’ than men” and might lead employers to say, “you should sit at home after informing everyone.” Chief Justice Surya Kant warned: “Voluntarily given is excellent. The moment you say it is compulsory in law, nobody will give them jobs. Nobody will take them in the judiciary or government jobs; their career will be over.” He described such pleas as potentially creating fear and calling women “inferior” by portraying menstruation negatively.
Despite declining to issue a mandamus, the court kept the policy door open. It directed the competent authority (the Central Government) to examine the petitioner’s representation and consider framing a policy on menstrual leave after consulting all relevant stakeholders. The PIL was disposed of with the observation that repeated litigation was unnecessary once the representation was under consideration.
The ruling comes months after a separate landmark Supreme Court judgment on January 30, 2026, in the Dr Jaya Thakur case, which declared menstrual health and hygiene an integral part of the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. That verdict mandated free sanitary napkins and gender-segregated toilets in all government and private schools but did not address paid leave.
Several states and private entities have experimented with menstrual leave on a voluntary basis, but no uniform national law exists. The Supreme Court’s observations on Friday underscore the delicate balance between affirmative action for women’s health and the risk of unintended discrimination in hiring and career progression.
The matter now rests with the executive, which has been asked to deliberate on the issue in consultation with stakeholders.
For More News Updates Follow Us On www.tconews.in
