The Supreme Court of India on Friday disposed of a writ petition seeking paid menstrual leave for women across establishments.
The court asked the Central Government to consider the petitioner’s representation while modelling any menstrual leave policy, in consultation with stakeholders.
During the hearing, however, the court raised concerns that making menstrual leave mandatory through legislation could have unintended consequences for women’s employment.
What The Petition Asked For
The petition was filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi.
He sought directions to the Union government, states and Union Territories to introduce laws or policies recognising the difficulties faced by women during menstruation.
The plea also asked for leave provisions for working women and female students, citing Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
ALSO WATCH: Smriti Irani on period leave
What The Court Said
The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed reservations about making menstrual leave mandatory through law.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said such a provision could affect women’s participation in the workforce.
"Creating awareness and sensitisation is different… but the moment you bring in a law mandating menstrual leave, nobody will hire them."
He warned that the move could unintentionally harm women’s careers.
"You do not know the kind of mindset created at the workplace… This can be harmful to their growth."
The Chief Justice also said mandatory leave could create a perception that women are less capable.
"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."
Justice Joymalya Bagchi also referred to hiring realities.
"Affirmative action in respect of females is constitutionally recognised. But look at the practical reality in the job market."
Questions Raised By The Bench
The court also questioned the locus of the petitioner.
The bench noted that no woman herself had approached the court in the matter.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said the petitioner was not personally affected by the issue and asked him to consider the long-term consequences of such a law.
What Was Mentioned During The Hearing
Senior Advocate M. R. Shamshad, appearing for the petitioner, said that some governments and organisations already allow menstrual leave.
He referred to policies in Kerala and Karnataka, and said several private companies voluntarily allow period leave.
The court noted that voluntary policies are different from mandatory laws.
"Voluntarily they are giving, then it is excellent… but the moment you introduce it as a compulsory condition in law, you do not know the damage it will do to the career of women."
Why The Case Came Back To Court
This was the third petition filed by the same petitioner on the issue.
In February 2023, the Supreme Court disposed of his first petition and allowed him to submit a representation to the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development.
He approached the court again in 2024, saying the Ministry had not responded to his representation. The court then asked the Union government to take a policy decision.
In the present petition, the court said it was not necessary to repeatedly approach the judiciary for the same issue.
ALSO WATCH: I have really bad periods: Shruti Haasan
What The Court Finally Ordered
The Supreme Court declined to issue directions for a nationwide menstrual leave law.
Instead, it directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s representation while examining the possibility of a policy.
The court said:
"The competent authority shall consider the representation… for modelling a policy in consultation with all stakeholders."
ALSO WATCH: Brother Helps Sister Bust Period Myth
Actor Shoaib Ibrahim Against The Period Taboo
Man makes his daughter’s first period special!
