The Supreme Court of India on Friday declined to issue directions mandating menstrual leave for women employees and students nationwide, observing that making such leave compulsory could inadvertently affect women’s employment opportunities.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeking a nationwide policy for menstrual leave in workplaces and educational institutions.
During the hearing, the bench cautioned that a judicial mandate on menstrual leave could have unintended consequences in the job market. “If you make it mandatory, employers may hesitate to hire women. Nobody will assign them responsibilities,” the bench observed.
The petition argued that menstrual leave was necessary to safeguard women’s health and dignity, highlighting that many women suffer from severe menstrual pain and conditions such as Endometriosis, Uterine fibroids, Adenomyosis and Pelvic inflammatory disease, which can make it difficult to attend work or classes during menstruation.
However, the court expressed concern that mandating such leave through judicial orders could reinforce stereotypes about women’s capabilities in the workplace.
“These petitions are deeply rooted, designed PILs. You are not a bona fide petitioner. This is basically only to create a type of impression in young women that you still have some natural issues and you are not at par with male persons and you cannot work like them during a particular time,” Chief Justice Kant remarked.
The Chief Justice also asked the petitioner to consider the long-term implications of such a policy. Justice Bagchi added that while affirmative action for women is constitutionally recognised, practical realities of the job market must also be taken into account.
“Affirmative action in respect of females is constitutionally recognized. But look at the practical reality in the job market. The more unattractive the human resource, the less is the possibility of assumption in the market. Look at the business model. Will any employer be happy with the competing claims of other genders?” Justice Bagchi said.
“You are creating a right of taking a leave in month, the entire private sector,” Chief Justice Kant added, cautioning that such a move could affect workplace perceptions. “This can be harmful to their growth, you do not know the kind of mindset created at the workplace,” he said.
During the hearing, advocate Shamshad pointed out that certain states have already introduced menstrual leave policies. He noted that Odisha has had a menstrual leave policy since 1992, while Karnataka recently introduced a similar policy and Kerala has allowed relaxations in schools. He also noted that several private organisations voluntarily provide menstrual leave.
The bench reiterated that legislating mandatory menstrual leave could unintentionally reinforce gender stereotypes. “These are plans which may end up portraying women as inferior,” the court remarked.
Declining to pass any binding directions, the court emphasised that the issue involves complex policy considerations better handled by the executive.
“These are matters of policy. The government should examine them after consultation with all stakeholders,” the bench stated, suggesting that the Union government may consider the issue at the policy level if it deems necessary.
The court also noted that institutions and state governments remain free to introduce menstrual leave policies independently, and that several organisations in India have already adopted such provisions voluntarily.
Disposing of the petition, the bench directed the competent authority to examine the representation made by the petitioner for framing a policy after consultations with relevant stakeholders.
By declining to impose a nationwide mandate, the Supreme Court left the issue to legislative and policy deliberations, underscoring the need to balance women’s health concerns with workplace equality and employment opportunities.
