India’s top court has rejected a petition calling for a nationwide menstrual leave policy, with the bench warning that mandatory leave would deter employers from hiring women altogether.
The public interest litigation (PIL), filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, sought a uniform national policy granting working women and female students paid leave during menstruation, citing conditions including dysmenorrhea, endometriosis and pelvic inflammatory disease. The petition also sought effective implementation of provisions under the Maternity Benefit Act 1961.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the petition on 13 March, directing the government to examine the petitioner’s representation in consultation with all relevant stakeholders. It was the third time Tripathi had brought the matter before the court; previous petitions were disposed of in February 2023 and July 2024.
In rejecting the petition, Chief Justice Kant said: “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 bench also questioned the basis of the petition, noting that no woman had personally approached the court seeking the relief.
The judges acknowledged that voluntary policies introduced by companies and institutions were “excellent,” but said legislating the measure would reinforce the idea that menstruation makes women less capable than their male colleagues. They warned it could create the impression that women require “special treatment,” ultimately harming their employability and career progression.
Responding to arguments put forward by senior advocate M.R. Shamshad, who cited voluntary schemes already in place at several private companies and in Kerala’s state-run universities, the bench said such measures were welcome but drew a clear distinction between voluntary adoption and legal compulsion.
Public health expert and lawyer Sukriti Chauhan told the BBC that in framing menstrual leave as making women “unattractive” to employers, the court had itself reinforced the taboo it claimed to be protecting women from. She said existing Indian law speaks to “workplace dignity, gender equality, and safe working conditions,” and that denying menstrual leave forces women into “uncomfortable, undignified or hazardous work environments.”
Several Indian states have introduced limited provisions: Bihar and Odisha provide two days of menstrual leave per month for government employees, Kerala offers it to staff at universities and industrial training institutes, and Karnataka introduced a law last year approving one day off per month for all menstruating women. A number of large private companies, including CEAT and food delivery platform Zomato, have also introduced voluntary schemes.
India is not alone in grappling with the question. Countries including Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Spain and Zambia have national menstrual leave provisions of varying scope. Spain became the first European country to legislate paid menstrual leave in 2023, allowing up to five days per month for those with disabling symptoms. In the UK, there is currently no statutory right to menstrual leave, with workers relying instead on existing sick leave provisions. A parliamentary petition calling on the UK government to introduce paid menstrual leave for those with conditions such as endometriosis gathered over 109,000 signatures, though the government said it had no plans to act on it.
The Supreme Court’s ruling does not close the door on policy development. It has directed authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation and consult stakeholders before deciding whether a framework could be introduced. Whether that process leads to any substantive change remains to be seen.
The New Feminist covers women’s health and workplace rights across the UK and beyond.
Photo from Depositphotos