The Supreme Court on Friday disposed of a writ petition seeking paid menstrual leave for women in all establishments. It directed the Central Government to consider the petitioner’s representation for framing a menstrual leave policy. The Court said the Government should do so in consultation with all stakeholders.
During the hearing, the Court expressed reservations about making menstrual leave compulsory through legislation. The Bench said such a mandate could have unintended effects in the job market. It added that employers may become reluctant to hire women. That, in turn, could affect women’s participation in the workforce.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also questioned the locus of petitioner Shailendra Mani Tripathi. The judges noted that no woman had approached the Court herself. They also noted that Tripathi had filed three writ petitions on the same issue.
Menstrual Leave Policy Plea Before Supreme Court
The Court disposed of the first petition in February 2023. It allowed the petitioner to submit a representation before the Union Ministry of Women and Children.
In 2024, the petitioner moved the Court again. He said the Ministry had not responded to his representation. The Court disposed of that petition in July 2024. It asked the Union to take a policy decision.
In the present petition, the petitioner asked the Union of India, States and Union Territories to frame laws, policies or government orders. These measures, according to him, should recognise the difficulties women face during menstrual pain. He referred to Dysmenorrhea, Endometriosis, Uterine Fibroids, Adenomyosis and Pelvic Inflammatory Disease. He also sought reliefs including leave in consonance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
He further asked the Court to fill what he described as a lacuna regarding relief in the nature of leave for working women and female students. For that relief, he invoked Article 32 read with Articles 14, 21, 141 and 142 of the Constitution.
Court’s Concerns Over Menstrual Leave Policy
Senior Advocate M.R. Shamsad, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that only the Karnataka Government had framed a policy allowing menstrual leave.
The Bench, however, showed little inclination to entertain the plea. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that compulsory period leave could prove counter-productive.
“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 you still have some natural issues and you are not at par with male persons and you cannot work like them during a particular time,” CJI Kant said.
The Chief Justice also pointed out that no woman had approached the Court. He further noted that the petitioner was not personally aggrieved. He asked the petitioner to consider the “long-term impact” such a measure could have on women’s employment.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed, “Affirmative action in respect of females is constitutionally recognised. But look at the practical reality in the job market. The more unattractive the human resource, the less is the possibility of assumption in the market. Look at from the business model. Will any employer be happy with the competing claims of other genders?”
“You are creating a right of taking a leave in month, the entire private sector….” CJI Kant said.
“This can be harmful to their growth…You do not know the kind of mindset created at the workplace,” the Chief Justice added.
State Examples Cited on Menstrual Leave Policy
In response, Shamsad submitted that Odisha has had a policy since 1992. He added that Karnataka recently allowed such a leave policy. He also said Kerala allowed relaxation in schools. In addition, he submitted that many private organisations voluntarily allow period leave.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant then remarked, “Voluntarily they are giving, then it is excellent. That is a very good thing. But 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, even in judicial services, a normal trial will not be assigned to them.”
Supreme Court Direction on Menstrual Leave Policy
The Bench then disposed of the writ petition. It also directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s representation.
The order states: “The petitioner has made a representation to the authority. It seems to us that whatever was required to be done at the end of the petitioner, he has done for the welfare of young women. It is not necessary for the petitioner to approach the Court time and again and seek a positive mandamus. We direct that the competent authority shall consider the representation directed to be considered by this Court by order dated February 24, 2023, and July 8, 2024, for modelling a policy in consultation with all stakeholders.”
Case Details
Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Secretary Ministry of Women and Child Development, Union of India and Ors.
Diary No.: 73736-2025
