13 March 2026
The Supreme Court of India on Friday disposed of a writ petition seeking directions for the introduction of paid menstrual leave for women across all establishments, directing the Central Government to consider the petitioner’s representation while formulating a policy in consultation with all stakeholders.
At the same time, the Court expressed concerns that making menstrual leave mandatory through legislation could have unintended consequences for women’s employment, potentially discouraging employers from hiring women and thereby affecting their participation in the workforce.
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. During the hearing, the bench also questioned the locus standi of the petitioner, Shailendra Mani Tripathi, observing that no woman had approached the Court directly seeking such relief.
The Court noted that the petitioner himself was not personally aggrieved, and this was the third writ petition filed by him on the same issue.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had earlier approached the Supreme Court seeking directions to introduce menstrual leave policies.
First Petition (2023): Disposed of by the Court allowing the petitioner to submit a representation before the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development.
Second Petition (2024): Filed on the ground that the Ministry had not responded to his representation. The Court then directed the Union Government to take a policy decision on the issue.
Present Petition: Filed again seeking directions for formulation of a law or policy granting menstrual leave.
Reliefs Sought in the Petition
The petitioner requested the Court to issue directions to the Union Government, States, and Union Territories to frame laws or policies recognising the difficulties faced by women during menstruation, including conditions such as:
Dysmenorrhea
Endometriosis
Uterine Fibroids
Adenomyosis
Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
The plea sought the grant of leave and other necessary reliefs for working women and female students, invoking Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner also requested the Court to fill the alleged legislative lacuna under its powers under Articles 32, 141, and 142 of the Constitution.
Court’s Observations on Mandatory Menstrual Leave
During the hearing, the bench expressed reservations about introducing mandatory menstrual leave through legislation.
Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked that such a policy might become counter-productive, stating that it could unintentionally reinforce the perception that women are less capable of working during certain periods.
The Chief Justice observed:
“These petitions are deeply rooted, designed PILs. You are not a bona fide petitioner. This is basically only to create a type of impression in young women that they still have some natural issues and they are not at par with male persons.”
The Court also emphasised that no woman had directly approached the Court seeking such relief.
Concerns Regarding Employment Impact
The bench further highlighted the practical implications in the job market.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that while affirmative action for women is constitutionally recognised, one must also consider the realities of the employment market. He remarked that making such benefits mandatory could affect how employers perceive female employees in terms of productivity and workplace responsibilities. Chief Justice Kant also warned that mandatory menstrual leave could affect career growth and workplace opportunities, particularly in competitive sectors.
“The moment you introduce it as a compulsory condition in law, you do not know the damage it will do to the career of women. Nobody will give them responsibilities,” the Chief Justice observed.
The Court noted that voluntary policies by organisations allowing menstrual leave are a positive development but cautioned against imposing a uniform statutory mandate.
