The Supreme Court has expressed reservations about making menstrual leave mandatory for workplaces and educational institutions, warning that a compulsory rule could unintentionally harm women’s employment prospects. The court said such policy decisions are better left to the executive and legislatures rather than imposed by judicial fiat.
Background of the petition
The matter arose from a Public Interest Litigation filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeking a directive to central and state governments to frame rules providing paid menstrual leave for women employees and female students. The petitioner argued that paid leave would address health challenges associated with menstruation and improve dignity and comfort for women in professional and academic settings.
Supreme Court’s response
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to issue any such directive. The court observed that labour policy and welfare measures involve complex socio-economic considerations and are ordinarily within the remit of governments and legislatures.
Concerns about unintended consequences
The Chief Justice warned that mandating menstrual leave could create adverse incentives for employers. “If employers are legally required to grant additional leave every month, some companies may become reluctant to hire women,” the court said, noting the risk that women could be perceived as less available for work.
Justice Bagchi added that businesses factor in productivity and operational needs when making hiring decisions, and any policy must be calibrated to workplace realities to avoid creating disadvantages for women in the job market.
Existing practices and ongoing debate
The court recognised the importance of menstrual health and acknowledged that several states and private organisations have already introduced menstrual leave policies on a voluntary basis. The bench observed that while the issue merits attention, solutions could also include flexible workplace arrangements, medical leave provisions, or targeted welfare schemes designed by governments.
The debate in India continues: proponents argue menstrual leave supports women’s health and workplace dignity, while critics caution against mandatory rules that could entrench hiring bias. Lawmakers and employers will likely remain central to crafting balanced, evidence‑based policies going forward.
