As the debate over menstrual health reaches a fever pitch, the apex court warns that a mandatory leave policy could inadvertently “shut the doors” of employment for women across India
OdishaPlus Bureau
On March 13, 2026, the Supreme Court of India delivered a verdict that has sparked a nationwide conversation on the intersection of biological needs and workplace equality. In the case of Shailendra Mani Tripathi vs. Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development & Others, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to issue a mandatory directive for paid menstrual leave, citing concerns that such a move could become a “double-edged sword” for female professionals.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who sought a judicial mandate for the Union Government and all States to frame a model policy for menstrual leave. The petitioner argued that the biological reality of menstruation—often accompanied by debilitating conditions like dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, and PCOS—remains a “legal vacuum” in India’s labor laws.
The petition contended that while the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 addresses the needs of pregnant women, it ignores the monthly physiological challenges faced by millions. Tripathi argued that the lack of such leave violates the right to dignity and health under Article 21 and the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
While the bench expressed empathy for the cause, its legal analysis focused on the “practical reality” of India’s competitive job market. The court’s refusal was based on three primary concerns:
Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that a mandatory legal requirement could backfire. “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 CJI remarked. The court feared that private employers might view female candidates as “costly” compared to male counterparts, leading to a decline in female labor force participation.
The bench warned that a mandate might reinforce the harmful stereotype that women are “less capable” or “physically inferior” due to their biological cycles. Justice Bagchi noted that while affirmative action is constitutionally protected, it must not become a barrier to the very group it intends to help.
The court emphasized that leave policies are a “matter of policy” that falls within the domain of the Executive. It held that the judiciary cannot issue a “positive mandamus” to create a law that involves complex socio-economic trade-offs.
The Supreme Court did not entirely dismiss the merit of the idea. Instead, it disposed of the petition with a direction to the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development to consider the petitioner’s representation.
The Court encouraged the government to:
Consult Stakeholders: Engage with employers, women’s rights groups, and medical experts.
Formulate a Model Policy: Develop a framework that states and private entities can choose to adopt.
Support Voluntary Initiatives: The bench praised states like Bihar (which has had a 2-day policy since 1992), Kerala (which grants leave in state universities), and Odisha, alongside private companies for their “excellent” voluntary policies.
This ruling follows the court’s 2024 and 2025 observations where it consistently maintained that while menstrual hygiene is a fundamental right (as seen in the Dr. Jaya Thakur verdict), workplace leave is a contractual and economic issue. The apex court has signaled that social change should ideally stem from legislative consensus and voluntary corporate evolution rather than judicial decree.
