Abstract
Menstruation is a universal biological process, yet it remains one of the least discussed aspects of workplace policy. For many women and menstruating individuals, monthly cycles are accompanied by severe pain, fatigue, and other health complications that hinder performance at work or in educational institutions. This has sparked an intense debate in India: Should menstrual leave be recognised as a legal right or promoted as a voluntary social reform? While Bihar has granted menstrual leave to its employees since 1992, and Kerala extended similar relief to female students in 2023, the Supreme Court has twice declined to mandate nationwide menstrual leave, holding that it is a matter of policy. In contrast, private players like Zomato have independently introduced menstrual leave as part of inclusive HR practices.
This article examines the legal, constitutional, and social dimensions of menstrual leave in India. It analyses statutory gaps, judicial pronouncements, case law, and international perspectives, while weighing the pros and cons of treating it as a statutory entitlement. Ultimately, it argues for a hybrid approach: a model national policy providing uniform guidance, with space for States and employers to innovate based on local needs.
Introduction
The discourse surrounding menstrual leave is not just about granting time off; it is about dignity, equality, and workplace inclusion. For decades, menstruation in India has been a subject cloaked in silence, burdened by cultural taboos and stereotypes. While maternity leave has been legislated under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, menstruation has remained invisible in statutory frameworks.
Several nations, including Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, and Taiwan have already acknowledged the concept of menstrual leave, proving that such policies can function alongside strong economic particiaption. In India, the issue entered the legal spotlight when a PIL was filed before the Supreme Court in 2023, seeking a uniform law on menstrual leave. The Court declined, emphasizing that it is not within the judiciary’s domain to frame such a policy. In 2024, the Court again reiterated its stance but recommended that the Union Government consult stakeholders to draft a model menstrual leave policy.
Simultaneously, Bihar’s policy for government employees and Kerala’s attendance relaxation for students illustrate State-level willingness to innovate, while corporate initiatives like Zomato’s period-leave policy showcase the role of private employers in driving social reform.
The central question, therefore, is whether menstrual leave in India should be anchored in law as a statutory right or left to evolve as a social reform through voluntary adoption. This article examines the constitutional underpinnings, statutory gaps, case law, and socio-economic implications to suggest a path forward.
To the Point
The key issue is straightforward:
For legal recognition: Menstrual leave ensures uniformity, substantive equality, and recognition of health and dignity under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
Against compulsory legislation: A mandatory law may discourage employers from hiring women or foster workplace discrimination.
Thus, menstrual leave is best implemented through a dual mechanism—a national model policy laying down minimum standards, combined with State and employer-level flexibility to design context-specific solutions.
Use of Legal Jargon
Substantive Equality (Article 14): Equality in law must address structural and biological differences.
Protective Discrimination (Article 15(3)): The Constitution permits affirmative action for women and children.
Bodily Integrity & Reproductive Autonomy (Article 21): Fundamental rights jurisprudence expands to cover menstrual health.
Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 42 of the Constitution) Oblige the State to secure good working conditions and maternity relief.
Presenteeism: Working despite poor health, leading to reduced productivity.
Labour Market Discrimination: Potential bias by employers when compliance costs appear higher for hiring women.
Policy Competence: Courts refrain from entering executive or legislative spheres, deferring to democratic processes
The Proof
1. Physiological and Medical Basis
Medical literature recognises dysmenorrhea, menorrhagia, and endometriosis as conditions causing debilitating pain, nausea, headaches, and fatigue. Studies reveal that 20–30% of menstruating individuals face symptoms severe enough to disrupt daily functioning. A legal or policy framework acknowledging this is not indulgence but healthcare recognition.
2. International Practice
Japan (1947): Employers required to grant menstrual leave without wage penalties.
South Korea: Provides one day of menstrual leave per month to their women employees/ Workers under the labour laws.
Taiwan & Indonesia: Offer 1–2 days of menstrual leave per cycle.
These models demonstrate that menstrual leave is compatible with modern economies.
3. Indian State Practices
Bihar (since 1992): Two days of special leave monthly for women government employees.
Kerala (2023): Attendance relaxation for female students across State universities.
4. Corporate Adoption
Zomato (2020): Ten days of paid menstrual leave annually, sparking a wave of discussion in corporate India.
Several start-ups (Culture Machine, Byju’s, Gozoop) have adopted similar policies.
5. Judicial Stance
The Supreme Court in 2023 and 2024 held that menstrual leave lies within policy competence, not judicial mandate. However, it directed the Union Government to consult and frame a model policy—a middle path between denial and compulsion.
Case Laws
1. Shaildra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India (2023 & 2024, SCC OnLine SC 1694)
PIL sought nationwide menstrual leave.
Court declined to intervene, holding it was a legislative/executive domain matter.
In 2024, SC advised Union Government to develop a model policy through consultation.
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (2000)
Extended maternity benefits to daily-wage women workers.
Precedent for interpreting “humane work conditions” broadly.
3. Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1
Affirmed reproductive autonomy as a facet of Article 21.
Supports menstrual health as part of reproductive rights.
4. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
Recognized privacy and bodily integrity as fundamental rights.
Policies must avoid intrusive verification of menstrual leave.
5. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2019)
(Sabrimala case)
Condemned menstrual stigma in religious entry restrictions.
Symbolic relevance in destigmatizing menstruation at workplaces.
Conclusion
The debate over menstrual leave in India embodies the tension between law and social reform. On the one hand, constitutional principles—Articles 14, 15(3), and 21—provide a strong foundation for recognizing menstrual leave as a legal entitlement. On the other, the risks of labour-market discrimination and practical enforcement challenges suggest caution against a blanket statutory mandate.
A hybrid model offers the most pragmatic solution:
A national model policy framed by the Union Government, ensuring uniform minimum standards.
State flexibility to innovate, as seen in Bihar and Kerala.
Employer discretion to adapt based on sectoral realities, supplemented by anti-discrimination clauses.
Ultimately, menstrual leave is not merely about absence—it is about affirming dignity, recognizing health needs, and dismantling menstrual stigma in workplaces and institutions. Properly designed, it can enhance productivity, inclusivity, and justice, making India’s workforce more humane and equitable.
FAQ
Q1. Is menstrual leave mandated by Indian law?
No. There is no central law yet. Only Bihar (government employees) and Kerala (students) have implemented it, while some private firms voluntarily grant it.
Q2. What is the Supreme Court’s position?
In 2023 and 2024, the Court refused to mandate menstrual leave but directed the Union Government to consider a model policy after consulting States and stakeholders.
Q3. Which private companies in India provide menstrual leave?
Zomato offers 10 days annually; others like Culture Machine and Gozoop have similar policies.
Q4. Could mandatory menstrual leave backfire?
Yes. Employers may hesitate to hire women if costs rise. Safeguards such as self-certification, modest caps, and anti-discrimination clauses are essential.
Q5. Is menstrual leave limited to women?
No. Policies should be inclusive of anyone who menstruates, including trans men and non-binary individuals.
Q6. What are alternatives to menstrual leave?
Flexible work-from-home, wellness facilities, access to sanitary products, and rest breaks can complement or substitute leave policies.
Q7. Why is this both a legal and social issue?
Because law can create uniform standards, but stigma and workplace culture can only change through social reform and awareness.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India