The Karnataka High Court has recalled its stay on the state notification that expanded one-day monthly menstrual leave for the state’s female employees. The court will hear the government’s arguments on the issue on December 10, 2025.
The Karnataka government had introduced a menstrual leave policy in November 2025 that granted working women aged 18 to 52 one paid day off each month. However, Justice Jyoti Mulimani paused the November 20 notification on December 9, 2025, around 10:45 AM, after petitions from the Bangalore Hotels Association and Avirata Connectivity Systems.
This stay was recalled the same day, after lunch, abt 1:30 PM, at the request of Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty. Shetty asked the court to hear arguments on behalf of the State on December 10, 2025, before considering the petitioners’ plea to stay the notification on menstrual leave.
The petitioners challenged the validity of the one-day menstrual leave policy notification, claiming that it was unconstitutional and procedurally flawed. In October 2025, the Karnataka Cabinet made a decision regarding the one-day leave. As per Parliamentary Affairs Minister H. K. Patil, this was a move followed by positive outcomes seen in Kerala, Odisha, and Bihar, after similar policies were applied.
The November notification had expanded the scope of this policy, affecting all establishments covered by the Factories Act of 1948, the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act of 1961, the Plantations Labour Act of 1951, the Beedi and Cigar Workers Act of 1966, and the Motor Transport Workers Act of 1961 under its remit.
This, as per the Bangalore Hotels Association, exceeded the state’s legal authority. The group, which claims to represent over 1,500 establishments, claimed that none of the cited labour laws require employers to offer menstrual leave. Hence, any such policy would need to be enacted through amendments rather than executive notification.
The Bangalore Hotels Association further stated that the state government had not followed due process, maintaining that a preliminary notification inviting public objections was required. The decision to seek objections on the notification only through the labour commissioner and not placing it in the public domain was also labelled as a breach of natural justice.
In the petition, the Association also argued that the principle of menstrual leave could amount to “benevolent sexism,” potentially affecting women’s employment prospects in the private sector.
