The Supreme Court has rejected a petition asking for mandatory menstrual leave for women in schools and workplaces. Why? Well, the petitioner wanted states to create rules that guarantee paid leave during menstruation. In other words, the petitioner sought the leave to be made compulsory by law. The judges, however, warned that such a law could harm women’s job prospects. Chief Justice Surya Kant explained that employers may avoid hiring women if leave was made compulsory, fearing extra costs or disruptions. He also said that enforcing such a rule could unintentionally make women feel they are less capable than men, reinforcing negative stereotypes.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi added that while the Constitution supports affirmative action for women, the reality of the job market is different. He argued that employers often view policies that increase costs or reduce flexibility as unattractive, which could reduce opportunities for women. The court stressed that awareness and voluntary measures are better than legal mandates. For instance, Kerala introduced menstrual leave for female students in state universities in 2013, describing it as part of building a gender-just society. Some private companies also offer similar benefits, but these are voluntary choices, not legal requirements.
The Chief Justice warned that if menstrual leave became a legal obligation, women could face discrimination in hiring for government or judiciary jobs, with employers telling them to stay at home instead of pursuing careers. At the same time, the SC highlighted its earlier ruling from January, which recognised menstrual hygiene as a fundamental right linked to dignity, health and education. In that decision, the Court directed governments to provide free sanitary napkins, proper toilets, and awareness campaigns. In short, while the court supports measures to improve menstrual health, it believes compulsory leave laws could backfire by reducing women’s chances in the workplace.