Supreme Court Rejects Plea for Mandatory Menstrual Leave: What This Means for Women

The Supreme Court of India has turned down a petition for mandatory menstrual leave for women, stating that such matters should be determined by government policy. The court expressed concerns that enforcing such leave could negatively affect women's employment opportunities. While some states and private companies have adopted menstrual leave policies, the court cautioned against making it a legal requirement. This decision raises important questions about women's rights and workplace policies in India. Read on to understand the implications of this ruling and what it means for women in the workforce.

By Narendra Chaudhary Mar 13, 2026, 15:53 IST

Supreme Court's Stance on Menstrual Leave

New Delhi: On Friday, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition advocating for mandatory menstrual leave for women in the workforce and female students nationwide, stating that such issues should be handled through government policy.

The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, expressed concerns that enforcing compulsory menstrual leave might unintentionally suggest that women are less capable, potentially harming their job prospects.

The court acknowledged that the petitioner had previously approached the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development and suggested that the government might consider developing a suitable policy after engaging with relevant stakeholders.

Senior advocate M.R. Shamshad, representing the petitioner, pointed out that some states and organizations have already implemented measures in this area. He noted that Kerala has permitted such leave in schools, and several private firms have voluntarily adopted menstrual leave policies.

In response, the bench welcomed voluntary initiatives by employers but warned that making menstrual leave a legal requirement could lead to negative repercussions.

"If it becomes a legal obligation, employers might become reluctant to hire women in various sectors, including government jobs, which could ultimately hinder women's career advancement," the court stated.

The petition argued that while maternity leave is provided for pregnancy, there is no equivalent provision for the discomfort and health issues related to menstruation. It requested that the Centre and state governments establish regulations allowing for at least two days of menstrual leave each month.

Previously, the Supreme Court had expressed a similar viewpoint. In July 2024, a bench led by then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud urged the Centre to explore the viability of a menstrual leave policy after consulting with states and other stakeholders.

Upon dismissing that petition, the court noted that enforcing menstrual leave through judicial mandates could deter employers from hiring women, emphasizing that such matters are more appropriately addressed at the policy level.