Supreme Court orders federal government to consult stakeholders on menstrual leave policy for working women

The Supreme Court has ordered the federal government to consult all stakeholders on introducing a menstrual leave policy for working women.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra observed that such a policy may not be well received by employers and may create problems for women job seekers.

It was noted that while introducing such a leave policy may encourage women to take a leading position in the workplace, the other side of the coin must also be considered: employers who do not agree to employ women, which may result in lowering their productivity in the workplace.

The ruling was issued by the Supreme Court in response to a petition seeking grant of menstrual leave to female students and working women across India.

The Supreme Court has held that there are two very different perspectives, one that the policy of allowing menstrual leave encourages women to be part of the workforce, while the other states that such a policy creates obstacles for women in terms of employment because the employer will then shun women in the workplace. We do not want that to happen either.

The CJI, while highlighting both the perspectives, said that ultimately the matter would come within the purview of the policy as the employer would also be an interested party in it.

The whole issue is a purely political one that employers should consider, especially at a government level, because any measures intended to protect women actually work against them.

However, the petitioners’ advocates argued that the menstrual leave policy had in fact been adopted by a few private employers. Globally, Asian countries such as Japan and Indonesia have also adopted menstrual leave policies.

It is worth noting that the UK, Wales, Spain, Zambia, China, Taiwan and South Korea have also introduced legislation on menstrual leave for women in the workplace.

The petitioner had filed a similar petition in 2023 and a division bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala refused to interfere in the case.

The court granted the petitioner liberty to file an application before the Ministry of Women and Child Development, to which the ministry is yet to respond. The court then granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application before the Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, who will hold a joint meeting with the stakeholders to consider whether such a policy formulation is possible.

We make it clear that this does not prevent the state government from taking appropriate decisions keeping in mind the welfare of the workers concerned.”