In recent years, menstrual health has gradually moved from the periphery of public discourse to the forefront of discussions regarding workplace equality, dignity, and gender-responsive labour policy. Recognising menstruation as a legitimate occupational health concern rather than a private inconvenience, the Government of Karnataka in 2025 adopted one of India’s most ambitious menstrual leave frameworks. This progressive step, however, soon found itself under judicial scrutiny. In Bangalore Hotels Association (R) v Government of Karnataka, employer associations challenged the policy, prompting the Karnataka High Court to initially grant an interim stay- only to recall it later the same day. Far from signalling judicial inconsistency, the recall reflects a deeper constitutional moment: a pause for careful adjudication rather than a retreat from reform.
The Karnataka Menstrual Leave Policy, 2025: Background and Scope
The menstrual leave notification, issued by the Karnataka Labour Department on 12 November 2025, applies to establishments registered under key labour statutes, including the Factories Act, 1948 and the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961, among others. It extends to all women employees between the ages of 18 and 52, irrespective of whether they are permanent, contractual, or outsourced.
Note that, the policy did not emerge in isolation. It followed the constitution of an expert committee comprising government officials, labour representatives, industry stakeholders, medical professionals, and civil society members. A public consultation hosted on karmikaspandana.gov.in attracted 75 responses, a significant majority of which supported the policy. The Cabinet ultimately approved the Menstrual Leave Policy, 2025, framing it as a measure to enhance women’s health, productivity, and participation in the workforce.
The Legal Challenge: Arguments Against the Policy
Despite this consultative process, the policy was challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association, represented by Advocate Prashanth B K, on grounds of executive overreach. The petitioners argued that existing labour laws already provide comprehensive leave regimes and that the State lacked statutory authority to mandate menstrual leave through an executive notification. They further contended that the notification violated principles of natural justice, alleging inadequate consultation with employers, and pointed to arbitrariness on the ground that the State had not initially extended similar benefits to its own women employees.
Constitutional Justifications for Menstrual Leave: The State’s Defence
Defending the policy, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty characterised menstrual leave as a constitutionally grounded welfare measure rather than an administrative indulgence. Anchoring the policy in Article 42 of the Constitution of India, which directs the State to ensure just and humane conditions of work, and Article 15(3), which permits special provisions for women, the State argued that menstrual leave is intrinsically linked to dignity, health, and substantive equality in labour participation. The policy, it was submitted, responds to biological realities that law cannot afford to ignore.
The Interim Stay and Its Recall: Judicial Caution, Not Reversal
On 9 December 2025, the High Court initially granted an interim stay, citing concerns over stakeholder consultation. However, following detailed submissions clarifying the policy’s constitutional foundations and consultative origins, the Bench recalled the stay later the same day. Emphasising the public significance of the issue, the Court declined to halt implementation and invited both parties to file rejoinders ahead of a comprehensive hearing scheduled for 20 January 2026 before Justice Jyoti Mulimani.
Global Perspectives on Menstrual Leave
The recall serves as a judicial pause- an acknowledgement that menstrual leave lies at the intersection of gender-sensitive labour reform and economic feasibility. While industry stakeholders express concerns regarding financial burden and hiring implications, global experience suggests otherwise. Countries such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Zambia have long recognised menstrual leave in varying forms, framing it as an occupational health accommodation rather than a privilege. International labour discourse increasingly views such measures as essential to inclusive and sustainable workplaces.
By embedding menstrual health within labour rights, the Karnataka Menstrual Leave Policy aligns India with emerging global best practices that recognise equality not as sameness, but as accommodation of difference.
Conclusion: Beyond Formal Equality
As the High Court prepares for a detailed hearing, the debate now shifts from the urgency of interim relief to a more profound constitutional question: how should Indian labour law integrate women’s biological realities while preserving procedural fairness and economic viability?
The Court’s recall of the stay is not a step back. It is an invitation- to deliberate carefully, to refine thoughtfully, and to design a rights-affirming framework that recognises menstrual health as integral to workplace equality and constitutional justice.
Article By:
Dr. Amlanika Bora
Assistant Professor
School Of Legal Studies And Governance
Vidyashilp University, Bengaluru
