Supreme Court Declines PIL on Menstrual Leave Policy

The Supreme Court of India on March 13 declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a nationwide policy granting menstrual leave to women students and employees, stating that making such a provision mandatory could have unintended consequences.

A bench led by Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that compulsory menstrual leave policies could unintentionally reinforce gender stereotypes and potentially affect women’s employment prospects.

The Supreme Court declined to hear a PIL seeking a nationwide menstrual leave policy, warning that making such leave mandatory might discourage employers from hiring women. The court said the issue could still be examined by the competent authority after consultation with stakeholders.

Court Suggests Policy Review by Authorities

While refusing to entertain the petition, the Supreme Court said the competent authority may examine the representation submitted by the petitioner and consider whether a policy framework could be developed.

The bench indicated that such a decision should involve consultation with relevant stakeholders, including government agencies, institutions, and employers.

This approach, the court suggested, would allow authorities to evaluate the issue more comprehensively.

Questions Raised on the Petition

The petition was filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi.

During the hearing, the bench questioned the locus standi of the petitioner, noting that no woman had approached the court regarding the issue.

According to reports, this was the third writ petition filed by the petitioner on the same subject.

Debate Over Mandatory Menstrual Leave

During the proceedings, the petitioner pointed out that certain states and institutions have already introduced similar provisions.

For instance, some educational institutions in Kerala have provided relaxation measures for students, while a few private companies across India have voluntarily adopted menstrual leave policies for women employees.

However, the Chief Justice observed that making such leave legally mandatory could create hesitation among employers when hiring women in certain sectors.

The bench said it would be “excellent” if companies introduced such policies voluntarily, but warned that a legal mandate could lead to unintended employment disadvantages.

Why This Matters for Guwahati

The debate around menstrual leave has also been discussed in academic institutions and workplaces in Guwahati.

Universities, private companies, and workplaces in the city have increasingly been engaging in conversations about workplace wellbeing, gender-sensitive policies, and student welfare.

While there is currently no nationwide policy, the issue continues to be part of broader discussions on women’s health and workplace policies across the country.

What Happens Next

Although the Supreme Court declined to entertain the PIL, the matter may still be examined by relevant government authorities if they choose to review the representation submitted by the petitioner.

Any future policy proposal on menstrual leave would likely require consultations with states, institutions, and employers before implementation.

Frequently Asked Questions