Supreme Court turns down PIL seeking menstrual leave policy across country: 'Nobody will give them jobs'

The PIL was accordingly disposed of with the direction to the authorities to take an appropriate decision on the representation

The Supreme Court of India on Friday declined to consider a plea seeking a national policy on menstrual leave for women students and employees, noting that the measure could potentially discourage employers from hiring women and reinforce gender stereotypes.

However, the court said the appropriate authority could examine the representation and consider framing a policy after consultations with stakeholders. The petition was disposed of with a direction to authorities to take a decision on the matter.

“These pleas are made to create fear, to call women inferior, that menstruation is something bad happening to them.. this is an affirmative right... but think about the employer who needs to give paid leave,” a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, according to a report by PTI.

The bench was hearing a PIL filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi. During the proceedings, the Chief Justice expressed concerns over the possible social consequences of mandating menstrual leave through legislation, observing that such demands could inadvertently reinforce stereotypes about women.

Senior advocate MR Shamshad, appearing for the petitioner, argued that several states and institutions had already taken steps to accommodate menstrual leave. He cited the example of Kerala, where certain relaxations have been introduced in schools, and noted that a number of private companies have also voluntarily offered such leave to employees.

Responding to this, the CJI said voluntary policies were welcome but cautioned against making such provisions mandatory through law.

“Voluntarily given is excellent. The moment you say it is compulsory in law, nobody will give them jobs. Nobody will take them in the judiciary or government jobs; their career will be over. They will say you should sit at home after informing everyone,” the CJI said.

The bench also highlighted the potential impact of such measures on workplace perceptions and the professional growth of women.

Taking note of the petitioner’s submissions, the bench said that the petitioner had already made a representation to the relevant authorities.

The bench stated that it was not necessary for the petitioner to repeatedly approach the court seeking a mandamus.