The Supreme Court of India on Friday refused to entertain a petition seeking legally mandated menstrual leave for women across all workplaces, expressing concern that such a rule might negatively impact women’s career opportunities.

The court observed that while menstrual health issues deserve attention, making monthly leave a statutory requirement could lead employers to hesitate before hiring women.

Bench flags possible impact on hiring

The matter was heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

During the hearing, the judges pointed out that although policies aimed at supporting women are important, making menstrual leave compulsory could create unintended consequences in the job market.

The Chief Justice said that a legal provision requiring employers to grant leave every month might discourage companies from assigning responsibilities to women employees.

Justice Bagchi also noted that employers could begin viewing women as less favourable hires if additional mandatory leave becomes part of employment regulations.

Petition sought nationwide policy

The case was filed by petitioner Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who urged the court to direct both the Union and state governments to introduce laws or guidelines acknowledging menstrual health challenges faced by women.

The plea highlighted that many women experience severe conditions during menstruation, including disorders such as Endometriosis, Uterine Fibroids, Adenomyosis and Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, which can make it difficult to attend work or classes.

According to the petitioner, policies providing leave or other support measures could help women manage these health issues more effectively.

Court questions maintainability of plea

During the proceedings, the Chief Justice also raised questions about whether the petitioner had the standing to bring the issue before the court, noting that the request had not been filed by an affected woman.

The bench remarked that the petition appeared to be a public interest litigation that may unintentionally convey the idea that women cannot perform their duties equally during certain periods.

Voluntary policies welcomed

The petitioner’s counsel, senior advocate MR Shamsad, pointed out that certain governments and institutions have already introduced menstrual leave or similar accommodations.

Examples cited included policies in Odisha, where menstrual leave provisions exist for women employees, as well as recent initiatives in Karnataka and relaxation policies for students in some institutions in Kerala.

Responding to this, the Chief Justice said voluntary initiatives by employers or institutions were positive steps. However, imposing a universal legal requirement might produce adverse effects in professional environments.

Centre asked to study the proposal

While declining to issue directions for mandatory leave, the court asked the government to examine the representation submitted by the petitioner.

It suggested that the authorities could explore the possibility of developing a policy framework after consulting relevant stakeholders.

The bench also noted that the petitioner had previously approached the court with similar requests in earlier years and that the matter had already been forwarded to the government for consideration.