Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought a nationwide policy mandating menstrual leave for women students and employees, cautioning that enforcing such a rule through legislation could unintentionally deepen gender stereotypes and even harm women’s career prospects.
The Supreme Court of India on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought a nationwide policy mandating menstrual leave for women students and employees, cautioning that enforcing such a rule through legislation could unintentionally deepen gender stereotypes and even harm women’s career prospects.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that while menstrual health concerns deserve attention, making leave mandatory by law could produce unintended social and professional consequences.
However, the court left the door open for policy discussions, noting that the competent authority may examine the petitioner’s representation and explore the possibility of framing a policy after consulting relevant stakeholders. The bench disposed of the PIL with directions for authorities to consider the matter and take an appropriate decision.
“These pleas are made to create fear, to call women inferior — that menstruation is something bad happening to them. This is projected as an affirmative right. But one must also think about the employer who has to grant paid leave,” the bench observed.
The PIL was filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who urged the court to direct authorities to introduce a uniform policy across the country.
Chief Justice Surya Kant also flagged the risk that a mandatory policy could inadvertently reinforce stereotypes about women in professional environments.
Voluntary policies welcome, says CJI
Senior advocate M. R. Shamshad, appearing for the petitioner, highlighted that several states and institutions have already introduced measures to accommodate menstrual leave.
He cited the example of Kerala, where relaxations have been introduced in schools. He also noted that multiple private companies have voluntarily extended menstrual leave benefits to employees.
Responding to this, the Chief Justice acknowledged that voluntary initiatives were a positive step but warned against enforcing such provisions through legislation.
“Voluntarily given is excellent. The moment you make it compulsory in law, nobody will give them jobs. Nobody will take them in the judiciary or government jobs — their career will be over. They will say you should sit at home after informing everyone,” he said.
The bench further underlined that any sweeping legal mandate could influence workplace perceptions and potentially impact women’s professional growth.
Taking note of the submissions, the court observed that the petitioner had already submitted a representation to the relevant authorities. It added that there was no need for repeated petitions before the court seeking a mandamus, directing that the representation be examined through the appropriate administrative process.