The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the implementation of a mandatory nationwide menstrual leave policy for women students and workers. The Court observed that while the intent behind such a plea might be affirmative, a legal mandate could inadvertently harm women’s employment prospects and reinforce regressive social stereotypes.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the petition filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi. While refusing to issue a judicial mandate, the Court directed the competent authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation and examine the possibility of framing a policy after consulting all relevant stakeholders.
Concerns Over Workplace Discrimination
During the hearing, the bench expressed significant concerns regarding the potential socio-economic fallout of a legislated menstrual leave policy. Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that making such leave compulsory by law could discourage employers from hiring women altogether.
“Voluntarily given is excellent. The moment you say it is compulsory in law, nobody will give them jobs. Nobody will take them in the judiciary or government jobs; their career will be over,” the CJI remarked. He further cautioned that employers might view such a mandate as a reason to exclude women, telling them to “sit at home” after informing everyone of their condition.
The Court emphasized that such pleas, though framed as seeking rights, could be used to project women as “inferior” or suggest that menstruation is something “bad happening to them,” thereby reinforcing the very stereotypes that modern workplaces strive to dismantle.
Arguments for Policy Integration
Representing the petitioner, Senior Advocate M R Shamshad highlighted that several states and private entities have already taken proactive steps. He pointed to Kerala, where the state government has introduced relaxation in attendance for female students in schools and universities.
Shamshad also noted that various private companies have voluntarily adopted menstrual leave policies to support their employees. However, the bench maintained that while voluntary adoption is a positive trend, a judicial “mandamus” (a court order to a public official) was not the appropriate route for such a complex policy matter.
Judicial Conclusion
The bench noted that the petitioner had already submitted a representation to the relevant government authorities. Instead of interfering through a court order, the bench stated that it is for the executive to deliberate on the matter.
“These pleas are made to create fear… this is an affirmative right… but think about the employer who needs to give paid leave,” the bench observed, highlighting the need for a balanced approach that considers both the rights of the workers and the operational realities of employers.
By disposing of the PIL, the Supreme Court has effectively shifted the responsibility to the government to decide whether a formal policy framework is feasible after wide-ranging consultations with stakeholders.
