Supreme Court of India turned down plea on mandatory period leave. (AI image for representation)
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Friday declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a nationwide policy granting menstrual leave to women students and employees, observing that mandating such a provision could unintentionally reinforce gender stereotypes and potentially affect women’s employment prospects.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, said the competent authority may examine the petitioner’s representation and consider the possibility of framing a policy on menstrual leave after consulting relevant stakeholders.The court disposed of the PIL with directions to the authorities to take an appropriate decision on the representation.
Poll
Do you support the idea of mandatory menstrual leave for women?
“These pleas are made to create fear, to call women inferior — that menstruation is something bad happening to them.
Israel Iran War
This is projected as an affirmative right. But one must also think about the employer who has to grant paid leave,” the bench observed.The petition had been filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi.During the hearing, the Chief Justice raised concerns about the potential social consequences of mandating menstrual leave through legislation, noting that such measures could unintentionally reinforce stereotypes about women.
Voluntary policies welcome: CJI on Kerala example
Senior advocate M R Shamshad, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that certain states and institutions had already taken steps to accommodate menstrual leave.He cited the example of Kerala, where relaxations have been introduced in schools, and added that several private companies have voluntarily provided menstrual leave to employees.Responding to this, the Chief Justice said voluntary policies were welcome but cautioned against making such provisions mandatory through law.“Voluntarily given is excellent. The moment you make it compulsory in law, nobody will give them jobs. Nobody will take them in the judiciary or government jobs — their career will be over. They will say you should sit at home after informing everyone,” he said.The bench also noted the possible impact such measures could have on workplace perceptions and the professional advancement of women.Taking note of the submissions, the court observed that the petitioner had already submitted a representation to the concerned authorities and said there was no need to repeatedly approach the court seeking a mandamus.
