The Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) filed to mandate menstrual leave policy for working women and female students across India.
The court claimed that the policy may not be in the best interest of women and left it for the government to deliberate on the idea. As per the bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, such a policy may make things harder for women in the job market.
“You do not know the kind of mindset this can create in the workplace and job market. The moment you introduce a law, you cannot imagine the long-term problem they may face,” the bench stated.
“If it is voluntary, it is good. We are in agreement with you that affirmative action has to be recognised. But we have to look at the practical reality in the job market,” said the bench, adding, “From a business point of view, will an employer be willing to allow a person to take leave for two to three days every month? In the judiciary, too, they may not be assigned cases that require a long trial.”
The PIL was filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi, a lawyer who pointed towards the lack of a uniform policy on menstrual leave across the country. Senior advocate MR Shamshad also spoke for the petitioner, referring to the menstrual leave policies in Odisha and Karnataka, which provide 12 paid leaves annually for women working in the government sector, with the policy also extending to the private sector in Karnataka. He also noted that Kerala allows menstrual leave for students in state universities, granting them up to 60 days per year.
As per Shamshad, Tripathi had approached the court on this matter multiple times in the past. Following Tripathi’s first petition, which was decided on February 24, 2023, the Supreme Court had allowed him to move a representation to the Union government. Tripathi followed through and returned to the court about a year later to ask for a model policy on menstrual leave. This petition was decided on July 8, 2024, and the court issued a direction to the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development to hold consultations with all stakeholders, both at the Union and state levels, and to consider framing a model policy for all.
Building on the past, the Supreme Court bench did register its wonder about why the government has yet to come out with a policy framework. As such, the Court dismissed Tripathi’s third petition on the matter, stating, “It is not necessary for the petitioner to approach the court time and again. We have no doubt that the competent authority will earnestly consider our February 24, 2023 and July 8, 2024 orders on framing model policy for consideration by all stakeholders.”
