Supreme Court Rejects Petition for National Menstrual Leave Policy

The Supreme Court has turned down a public interest petition seeking a national policy for menstrual leave for women, expressing concerns about potential negative impacts on employment opportunities. The court highlighted that while the issue is valid, making such leave mandatory could reinforce stereotypes and discourage employers from hiring women. The petition, filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi, pointed to examples from states and companies that have already implemented menstrual leave. The court emphasized the importance of voluntary measures over legal mandates, ultimately directing officials to review the proposal with stakeholders before making a decision.

By Narendra Chaudhary Mar 13, 2026, 15:27 IST

Supreme Court's Decision on Menstrual Leave

On Friday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a public interest petition advocating for a uniform national policy that would grant menstrual leave to female students and working professionals. The court expressed concerns that mandating such benefits could inadvertently reinforce stereotypes and deter employers from hiring women. The bench, led by Chief Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, noted that this request could negatively impact women's employment opportunities.

Concerns Raised by the Court

While considering the petitioner's arguments, the bench remarked that these claims could instill fear, portray women as inferior, and suggest that menstruation is a negative occurrence for them. They emphasized that while menstrual leave is a legitimate issue, making it mandatory through legislation could have adverse social and professional consequences.

Examples Cited by the Petitioner

The public interest petition was filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi, whose lawyer, senior advocate M.R. Shamshad, pointed out that several states and private organizations have already implemented menstrual leave. He mentioned that Kerala has provided exemptions for students, and many companies have voluntarily offered such leave. In response, the Chief Justice acknowledged that voluntary measures are commendable but cautioned against legal mandates. He stated that while voluntarily granted leave is excellent, making it a legal requirement could lead to women being overlooked for jobs, particularly in the judiciary or government sectors, potentially jeopardizing their careers.

Court Directs Review of Proposals

The bench clarified that it was not inclined to issue a mandamus due to the petitioner's submission of representations to the competent authority. They instructed the relevant officials to evaluate the proposal in consultation with all stakeholders and make an informed decision. Consequently, the public interest petition was disposed of.