Mandatory period leave will cost women jobs: What SC said while dismissing plea | Key quotes, past cases

THe sublime margaret court on fri made some pointed observations as it disposed of a public stake judicial proceeding (PIL) seeking a nationwide menstrual leave policy for women students and workers. The court said making such period leave compulsory in law would deter employers from hiring women and inadvertently reinforce gender stereotypes.A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the PIL, ‘Shailendra Mani Tripathi vs Union of India’.What CJI-led bench observed“The moment you say it is compulsory in law, nobody will give them jobs. Nobody will take them in the judiciary or government jobs; their career will be over. They will say you should sit at home after informing everyone,” the CJI said, as per news agency PTI.The Chief Justice also questioned the very framing of the petition, suggesting it risked stigmatising periods rather than normalising it. "These pleas are made to create fear, to call women inferior, that menstruation is something bad happening to them," he said.He acknowledged menstrual leave as "an affirmative right" in its nature, but maintained that compelling it by law was a different matter.The bench drew a distinction between voluntary and mandated policies.When senior advocate M R Shamshad, appearing for the petitioner, pointed to Kerala, where relaxation has been introduced in schools, and to private companies that have voluntarily extended menstrual leave to employees, the bench acknowledged those examples. But it did not soften its position."Voluntarily given is excellent," the CJI remarked.Taking note that petitioner Tripathi had already submitted a representation to the relevant authorities, the bench said it was not necessary to keep approaching the court seeking a mandamus (an extraordinary order).The court did direct competent authorities to consider his representation and examine the possibility of framing a policy after consulting all relevant stakeholders. The PIL was thus disposed of.Also read | Why many women feel menstrual leave at workplace should be a valid optionNot the first time: ‘Two very different perspectives’This was the third such petition filed by Tripathi on the same issue, Live Law noted. The first one was disposed of in February 2023, allowing him to give a representation to the Union ministry of women and child welfare.He approached the court again in 2024, saying that the ministry did not respond to his representation. That petition was disposed of in July 2024, asking the Centre to take a policy decision.In July 2024, the bench led by then CJI DY Chandrachud, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, had expressed similar apprehensions as CJI Kant did on Friday."There are two very different perspectives,” the then CJI Chandrachud had observed while hearing the PIL, “[One is that] having that menstrual leave policy encourages the women to be part of the workforce; the other perspective is, that mandating such policies will actually impose sort of a bar on women being employed because the employer will then shun women in the workplace. We do not want that to happen also."That bench had then asked the Union government to hold stakeholder consultations and examine whether a model policy could be framed.When SC defined menstrual health as Right to LifeEarlier this year, a separate bench of the Supreme Court — Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan — issued a significant ruling in ‘Dr Jaya Thakur vs Union of India’, recognising the right to menstrual hygiene as part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.The bench held that the absence of gender-segregated toilets and access to menstrual absorbents strips girls of "dignity, privacy, equality and meaningful access to education," and that menstrual health cannot remain "a matter of charity or policy discretion" since it flows directly from constitutional guarantees.The court issued three binding directions requiring all schools — government and private — to provide functional gender-segregated toilets with adequate water supply, biodegradable sanitary napkins within toilet premises, and menstrual hygiene management systems equipped with spare uniforms and essential materials."Equality of opportunity requires the state to remove barriers that prevent girls from accessing education on the same footing as boys," the bench said, adding that privacy and dignity together placed a "positive obligation on the state not only to avoid violating privacy, but to actively protect it through necessary measures”.Where states stand on period leaveWhile there's no central law on menstrual leave, several Indian states have their own provisions.Bihar is an example, having introduced two days of paid menstrual leave per month for women government employees as far back as 1992 when Lalu Prasad Yadav was the chief minister. Kerala gave this benefit to female students in state universities in 2023, granting up to three days a month along with a relaxation in attendance requirements; and in 2024 extended it to women trainees in Industrial Training Institutes.Odisha introduced one paid day per month for women government employees in 2024, and Sikkim extended similar provisions to women employees in the High Court Registry.Karnataka went even further when its cabinet approved the Menstrual Leave Policy 2025 last October, making it the first state to mandate one paid menstrual leave day per month, totalling 12 days a year, across both government and private sectors, covering industries ranging from IT firms to garment factories. The policy was later challenged in court and a final decision remains sub judice.