SC refuses to entertain plea seeking mandatory menstrual leave policy
Advertisement
New Delhi, March 13 : The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a plea seeking mandatory menstrual leave for working women and female students across the country, observing that such a matter falls within the domain of government policy.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi remarked that pleas seeking compulsory menstrual leave may inadvertently create a perception that women are weak and could adversely impact their employment prospects.
Noting that the petitioner had already submitted a representation before the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development, the CJI Kant-led Bench said the government may consider framing an appropriate policy after consulting all stakeholders.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate M.R. Shamshad submitted that certain state governments and organisations have already taken steps in this direction. He highlighted that Kerala has allowed such relaxation in schools and that several private companies have voluntarily introduced menstrual leave policies.
Responding to the submission, the CJI Kant-led Bench said voluntary measures by employers are welcome. However, the apex court cautioned that making menstrual leave mandatory through law may have unintended consequences.
“If it becomes a legal mandate, employers may start hesitating to hire women in government jobs, litigation, or other sectors. That could ultimately harm women’s careers,” it said.
The plea had argued that while women are granted leave during pregnancy, there is no similar provision addressing the physical discomfort and health issues associated with menstruation. It sought directions to the Centre and state governments to introduce rules providing at least two days of menstrual leave every month.
Earlier as well, the Supreme Court had taken a similar view. In July 2024, a Bench headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud had asked the Centre to examine the feasibility of a menstrual leave policy after consulting states and other stakeholders.
Disposing of that petition, the apex court had observed that mandating menstrual leave through judicial directions could discourage employers from hiring women, adding that such questions are better addressed at the governmental policy level.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi remarked that pleas seeking compulsory menstrual leave may inadvertently create a perception that women are weak and could adversely impact their employment prospects.
Noting that the petitioner had already submitted a representation before the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development, the CJI Kant-led Bench said the government may consider framing an appropriate policy after consulting all stakeholders.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate M.R. Shamshad submitted that certain state governments and organisations have already taken steps in this direction. He highlighted that Kerala has allowed such relaxation in schools and that several private companies have voluntarily introduced menstrual leave policies.
Responding to the submission, the CJI Kant-led Bench said voluntary measures by employers are welcome. However, the apex court cautioned that making menstrual leave mandatory through law may have unintended consequences.
“If it becomes a legal mandate, employers may start hesitating to hire women in government jobs, litigation, or other sectors. That could ultimately harm women’s careers,” it said.
The plea had argued that while women are granted leave during pregnancy, there is no similar provision addressing the physical discomfort and health issues associated with menstruation. It sought directions to the Centre and state governments to introduce rules providing at least two days of menstrual leave every month.
Earlier as well, the Supreme Court had taken a similar view. In July 2024, a Bench headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud had asked the Centre to examine the feasibility of a menstrual leave policy after consulting states and other stakeholders.
Disposing of that petition, the apex court had observed that mandating menstrual leave through judicial directions could discourage employers from hiring women, adding that such questions are better addressed at the governmental policy level.
Advertisement
Note: The content of this article is sourced from a news agency and has not been edited by the ap7am team.