The Supreme Court of India on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking a nationwide policy for menstrual leave for women students and employees, observing that making such leave mandatory could unintentionally harm women’s employment prospects.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the petition while allowing the competent authority to examine the representation submitted by the petitioner.
Court Raises Concerns Over Workplace Impact
During the hearing, the bench expressed concern that a legally mandated menstrual leave policy could lead to unintended consequences in workplaces.
The Chief Justice remarked that employers might hesitate to hire women if they are required by law to provide additional paid leave.
The bench also warned that such legislation could reinforce stereotypes about women and portray menstruation as a limitation rather than a natural biological process.
Petition Filed By Advocate
The PIL was filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, seeking directions for a uniform policy granting menstrual leave across educational institutions and workplaces.
Senior advocate M R Shamshad, appearing for the petitioner, argued that several institutions and states have already taken steps to accommodate such provisions.
Examples Of Existing Policies
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel cited initiatives introduced in Kerala, where certain educational institutions have offered relaxation for women students.
He also pointed out that some private companies have voluntarily implemented menstrual leave policies for employees.
Voluntary Policies Welcomed
Responding to the argument, the bench said voluntary measures by institutions and companies were positive but cautioned against imposing such provisions through legislation.
The Chief Justice noted that making menstrual leave compulsory could affect women’s professional opportunities if employers begin viewing them as less employable.
Court Asks Authorities To Consider Representation
Taking note of the submissions, the court said the petitioner had already made a representation to the concerned authorities.
It directed the competent authority to examine the request and decide whether a policy framework on menstrual leave could be considered after consulting relevant stakeholders.
The court added that there was no need for repeated litigation when the matter was already under consideration.
