On March 13, 2026, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant declined to entertain a public interest litigation filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, which sought directions to the Centre and states to enact mandatory paid menstrual leave policies for working women and female students.
While acknowledging the genuine health challenges, such as severe dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, or other conditions that can disrupt daily functioning, the Court highlighted the profound risks of turning such support into a compulsory legal entitlement.
Chief Justice Kant was blunt: employers, already navigating biases in India’s competitive job market, might simply avoid hiring women altogether if faced with an additional, gender-specific leave obligation not applicable to men.
“Nobody will hire women if we make such a law,” he observed, warning that private companies, government roles, and even judicial positions could quietly sideline female candidates perceived as higher-risk for absenteeism or reduced productivity.
In sectors where reliability and long hours matter, this could translate to fewer promotions, lesser responsibilities, or outright exclusion, effectively capping women’s career trajectories before they begin.
In India’s fiercely competitive job market, where women already face subtle and overt biases during recruitment, a compulsory menstrual leave policy could unintentionally become a powerful disincentive for employers.
Chief Justice Surya Kant highlighted this risk starkly: when a law mandates additional paid leave exclusive to women, companies—especially in the private sector—may quietly prioritize male candidates to avoid the perceived cost of potential absenteeism or productivity dips.
This is not mere speculation; gender-discriminatory hiring already limits women’s entry into high-growth sectors like IT, finance, and consulting. Adding a statutory, biology-linked obligation risks turning menstrual health support into an employment liability, quietly shrinking opportunities rather than expanding them.
Beyond hiring discrimination, the Chief Justice pointed to a subtler but equally damaging effect: mandating menstrual leave risks embedding a psychological narrative that women are inherently “less” than men.
It could foster self-doubt among women or reinforce stereotypes among colleagues and superiors, portraying menstruation as a debilitating weakness rather than a normal biological process.
This impression, he argued, undermines the very confidence and equality progressive policies aim to promote.This concern aligns with broader labor market dynamics in India, where women’s workforce participation remains low (around 37% as per recent estimates), and gender biases persist in recruitment.
Beyond hiring barriers, mandatory menstrual leave carries a deeper psychological cost that could erode women’s long-term career confidence and advancement.
By legally codifying menstruation as a condition requiring special, protected absence, the policy might reinforce the very stereotype it seeks to dismantle—that women are inherently less reliable or capable due to their biology.
The Chief Justice warned that this could create a pervasive impression among colleagues, supervisors, and even women themselves that they are “less” than men in the workplace.
Over time, such perceptions fuel reduced responsibilities, fewer leadership roles, and slower promotions, effectively penalizing women for a natural process while claiming to protect them.
Adding a statutory burden tied to biology could exacerbate these gaps rather than close them, especially in a culture where many employers already favor male hires to minimize perceived disruptions.
The Court drew a clear line between voluntary and mandatory approaches. Initiatives like Kerala’s longstanding policy of granting menstrual leave to female students in state universities—positioned as steps toward a gender-just society—or flexible accommodations in some private firms demonstrate empathy without triggering backlash.
Such measures allow women genuine relief on tough days while preserving employer discretion and avoiding the perception of women as a “liability.”
The Supreme Court has previously affirmed menstrual hygiene as integral to a girl’s right to life, dignity, health, and education under Article 21 (as reiterated in related rulings).
True support, however, demands nuance: better access to healthcare for menstrual disorders, workplace flexibility (remote options, adjusted hours), widespread sensitization to destigmatize periods, and robust anti-discrimination enforcement.
The smarter path lies in voluntary, flexible, and non-discriminatory measures that deliver genuine relief without triggering backlash.
Policies like Kerala’s student menstrual leave, workplace options for remote work or adjusted hours on difficult days, improved access to menstrual healthcare, and strong anti-discrimination safeguards have shown they can support women effectively while preserving employer neutrality.
The Supreme Court’s January recognition of menstrual hygiene as integral to dignity, health, and education under Article 21 provides a strong foundation—but true progress demands nuance. Compulsory mandates, however compassionate in intent, risk deepening gender divides in employment if they fail to account for how real-world biases actually operate.
Compulsory mandates, while born of compassion, ignore how real-world biases operate. In striving for equity, policies must anticipate unintended consequences—lest they inadvertently deepen the very inequalities they seek to erase.
The Court’s caution is not dismissal; it’s a call for smarter, evidence-based solutions that empower women without penalizing them in the job market.
Naorem Mohen is the Editor of Signpost News. Explore his views and opinion on X: @laimacha.
Naorem Mohen
View More PostsNaorem Mohen is the Editor of Signpost News. Explore his views and opinion on X: @laimacha.
