New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Friday declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking the introduction of a nationwide policy granting menstrual leave for women students and employees. The court expressed concerns that making such a provision mandatory through law could unintentionally affect employment opportunities for women.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that while the issue raised important questions about workplace welfare, it also required careful consideration of its potential consequences for employers and employees alike.
During the hearing, the bench remarked that imposing a legal requirement for menstrual leave could create hesitation among employers when hiring women. The judges also cautioned that such measures might reinforce gender stereotypes by portraying menstruation as a limitation rather than a natural biological process.
The petition had been filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who requested the court to direct authorities to create a uniform national policy providing menstrual leave for women across workplaces and educational institutions.
While declining to pass such an order, the court said the appropriate government authority could review the petitioner’s representation and evaluate whether a policy could be developed after consultations with relevant stakeholders.
Senior advocate M. R. Shamshad, representing the petitioner, argued that some regions and institutions have already taken steps to address the issue. He cited examples from Kerala, where certain relaxations have been introduced in educational settings, and noted that several private companies have voluntarily implemented menstrual leave for employees.
Responding to the argument, the Chief Justice said voluntary initiatives by organisations are welcome but warned against making such provisions compulsory through legislation. According to the bench, a mandatory policy could unintentionally harm women’s career prospects if employers begin to view them differently in the hiring process.
The judges also observed that the petitioner had already submitted a representation to the relevant authorities and suggested that it would be more appropriate for the matter to be examined through administrative channels rather than through a court directive.
With these observations, the court disposed of the petition and asked authorities to consider the representation and take an appropriate decision after due consultation.
