After the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment declaring menstrual health a part of the right to live with dignity, petitioner Shailendra Mani Tripathi approached the Supreme Court for the third time seeking paid menstrual leave for women.
The Supreme Court dismissed the PIL and said that no one will hire women if a compulsion is set for paid menstrual leave. It will be counterproductive and lead to further marginalisation. The Supreme Court stressed the need to look at the practical reality in the job market.
The Bench further warned that such policies could reinforce stereotypes by creating the impression that women are less capable of working during certain periods. The Court clarified that such policy matters involve complex socio-economic considerations, including labour law, workplace dynamics, and employer obligations. These are better addressed by the legislature or executive authorities rather than through judicial directions.
There is no uniform menstrual leave policy in India but states like Bihar, Kerala, Odisha have their seperate policy in this regard. Also private sector companies like Zomato, Swiggy, BYJU’s have their own rules.
Japan was the first country to have a menstrual leave policy for women in 1947, and Spain became the first EU country with such framework in 2023.
The ruling has reignited debate around the intersection of gender equality, workplace rights, and welfare policies, raising a critical question: Should menstrual leave be a legal entitlement or remain a voluntary workplace policy?