Guwahati: Supreme Court of India on Friday expressed concern that making menstrual leave a compulsory legal entitlement could unintentionally harm the career prospects of women by influencing hiring decisions and workplace responsibilities.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that introducing a statutory mandate for paid menstrual leave might lead employers to hesitate in assigning key responsibilities to women employees.
“The moment you introduce this as a law and make it a compulsory condition, you may not be able to assess the amount of damage you may do to their career. Nobody may give them big responsibilities. In judicial services, people may not assign trials to them,” Chief Justice Kant said during the hearing.
At the same time, the court encouraged voluntary measures by employers and state governments to address menstrual health concerns. The Bench noted that some states, including Odisha, Karnataka and Kerala have already introduced policies allowing menstrual leave for students in state-run universities and institutions.
The Chief Justice drew a distinction between a legally enforceable statutory right and voluntary workplace policies adopted by institutions or employers to support women employees.
The court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeking directions to the government to enact a uniform law granting paid menstrual leave to working women and female students. The plea argued that such a measure would uphold women’s dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Tripathi contended that a judicial direction was necessary to address what he described as a legal gap in the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which currently does not provide for menstrual leave.
During the hearing, the petitioner also pointed out that several private organisations and educational institutions, including National Law Institute University Bhopal and Maharashtra National Law University Aurangabad have already adopted menstrual leave policies. Punjab University has also approved menstrual leave for students, he added.
Justice Bagchi said the court recognised the importance of the issue and supported the broader goal of affirmative action. However, he emphasised the need to consider practical realities in the labour market.
“We see it from the rights’ regime, but we must also look at the business model. Will an employer be comfortable with competing claims from the other gender?” he asked.
The Chief Justice also questioned whether it would be feasible to create a legal right allowing employees to take two or three days of leave every month.
The petition also referred to international practices, noting that India has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which calls for eliminating discriminatory practices and ensuring dignity for women.
It further cited examples from several countries. Spain has enacted a law providing menstrual leave, while Vietnam has long implemented similar provisions. Other countries, including United Kingdom, China, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, South Korea and Zambia have varying policies related to menstrual leave.