Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday determined that a detailed hearing is necessary before passing any interim orders regarding the challenge to the State Government’s November 20 notification. This notification entitles women employees in various establishments to one day of paid menstrual leave every month.
Justice Jyoti Mulimani adjourned the proceedings to January 20, 2026, without issuing any directions to stay the implementation of the policy. Consequently, the mandate requiring establishments to grant menstrual leave remains in force for the time being.
This decision follows a series of events on Tuesday, where the Court initially granted an interim stay in the morning session but subsequently recalled the order later that afternoon following an intervention by the Advocate General.
Background of the Case
The notification issued by the Karnataka Labour Department is applicable to all industries and establishments registered under several key labour statutes, including:
- The Factories Act, 1948
- The Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961
- The Plantation Labour Act, 1951
- The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966
- The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961
The policy has faced legal challenges from the Bangalore Hotels Association and the managements of several private entities, such as SASMOS HET Technologies, Avirata Defence Systems Limited, Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems Limited, and Fesil Aerospace Technologies Limited.
Petitioners’ Arguments: Executive Order vs. Legislative Process
During the hearing on Wednesday, Advocate Prashanth BK, representing various petitioners, clarified the nature of their challenge. He stated that the petitioners were not questioning the State’s authority to legislate on the issue, but were specifically challenging the procedure adopted to implement the policy.
The counsel argued that the State Government had issued the mandate through an executive order instead of amending the existing laws. The petitioners contended that since comprehensive statutes governing leave and holidays are already in place, any modification or addition to these entitlements should be done through the legislative process rather than by an executive fiat that travels beyond the scope of the parent statutes.
State’s Defence: A Progressive Measure
Appearing on behalf of the State, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty defended the policy, describing it as a progressive measure introduced after due consideration. He submitted that the policy is grounded in the Constitution to ensure humane conditions of work.
The Advocate General emphasized that the Karnataka legislature has consistently taken progressive steps for the benefit of women, aligning with similar policies that exist globally. He further informed the Court that the decision was not arbitrary, noting that the government had considered 72 objections before finalizing the policy. The State maintained its intention to implement the policy in full and opposed any move to stay its operation.
Court’s Observations
When the counsel for the petitioners urged the Court to request the State to maintain the status quo until the next hearing, Justice Jyoti Mulimani observed that matters of such public importance should not be decided in haste.
The Court noted that the issue requires detailed consideration and cannot be decided on first impression. Justice Mulimani suggested that the petitioners utilize the upcoming winter vacation to review the State’s statement of objections and file their response. The matter has been listed for a detailed hearing on January 20, 2026.
