The Supreme Court on Friday shut the door on a petition asking for a nationwide menstrual leave policy for women students and workers. The court’s concern was not that the idea was wrong in spirit, but that making it a law could actually end up hurting the very women it was meant to help.
What the Court Said
Chief Justice Surya Kant was direct about it. He warned that the moment menstrual leave becomes a legal requirement, employers will simply stop hiring women altogether. “You don’t know the mindset of employers. They will not hire women if we make such a law,” he said during the hearing.
He also raised another concern that goes beyond just jobs. A mandatory law like this, he argued, could plant the idea in workplaces that women are somehow less capable than men. That it sends the wrong message, that menstruation is a problem, something that makes women a liability rather than an equal contributor at work.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while hearing the PIL, said such provisions could unintentionally reinforce gender stereotypes instead of breaking them down.
Voluntary Is Fine, Mandatory Is Not
The petitioner’s lawyer, senior advocate M R Shamshad, pointed out that some states and private companies have already moved in this direction on their own. Kerala has introduced relaxations in schools, and several private firms have voluntarily offered menstrual leave to their employees.
The Chief Justice had no issue with that. Voluntary policies, he said, are welcome and a good thing. The problem starts when you make it compulsory. “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 said.
What Happens to the PIL Now
The court did not completely dismiss the idea of a policy being explored. It disposed of the PIL with a direction to the competent authorities to look into the representation already made by the petitioner and examine whether a policy can be framed, but only after properly consulting all relevant stakeholders. The bench also noted that the petitioner had already submitted a representation to the authorities and did not need to keep coming back to court for the same matter.
A Different Ruling Just Months Ago
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has weighed in on issues around women’s menstrual health. Back in January, a separate bench had taken a very different kind of stand, one that was far more proactive. That bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, recognised menstrual hygiene as an integral part of a girl’s right to life, dignity, health and education under Article 21 of the Constitution.
That ruling had gone further, directing all state governments to ensure free sanitary napkins were made available, that functional gender-segregated toilets were in place, and that menstrual health awareness campaigns were run actively.
The Bigger Picture
Friday’s ruling draws a clear line between two things that often get mixed up in this debate, awareness and legislation. The court appears to be saying that educating employers, sensitising workplaces and encouraging voluntary policies is the way forward. Forcing it through law, in its view, risks doing more damage than good in a country where workplace bias against women is already a real and present challenge.
The PIL was filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi.
