The Supreme Court has declined to direct the government to make paid menstrual leave mandatory, saying such a move could unintentionally discourage employers from hiring women. The bench urged that labour and welfare policy decisions are better resolved by legislatures and executive authorities than by courtroom orders.
Supreme Court hears PIL seeking paid menstrual leave
A public interest litigation filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi asked the top court to instruct the Union and state governments to frame rules granting paid menstrual leave to women employees and female students. The petitioner argued the measure would help women manage period-related health issues and improve comfort at work and in educational institutions.
Bench prefers policy-making by governments
The three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and including Justice Joymalya Bagchi, declined to issue a directive. The court observed that issues concerning labour regulations, employment benefits and welfare require policy choices and balancing of interests that are best undertaken by elected governments and administrative bodies.
“Nobody will hire women,” CJI warns
During the hearing, the Chief Justice expressed concern that a mandatory monthly leave entitlement could create unintended market signals. He warned that statutory additional leave might prompt some employers to hesitate in hiring women, particularly in sectors sensitive to labour costs and continuity of operations.
Justice Bagchi added that businesses factor in productivity and operational efficiency when making hiring decisions, and cautioned that well-intended rules should not produce adverse consequences for women’s employment prospects.
Existing voluntary measures and ongoing debate
The court noted that several states and private organisations have already adopted voluntary menstrual leave policies. It recognised menstrual health as a legitimate concern that warrants attention, while underscoring the need for carefully calibrated solutions.
Experts remain divided: proponents frame menstrual leave as a gender-sensitive health measure, while critics favour flexible workplace arrangements, paid sick leave, improved workplace facilities and broader gender-equitable labour reforms that avoid stigmatizing women or affecting their employability.
