“Nobody Will Hire Women”: Supreme Court Refuses PIL Seeking Nationwide Menstrual Leave Policy
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking a nationwide menstrual leave policy, observing that making such leave mandatory could discourage employers from hiring women.
Verdicto News Desk 
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the formulation of a nationwide policy providing menstrual leave for women students and employees.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed concerns that mandating menstrual leave through legislation could have unintended social and professional consequences for women in the workforce.
While declining to entertain the plea, the Court observed that such a requirement might discourage employers from hiring female workers.
“No one would give female workers jobs in such a scenario,” the Bench remarked, adding that a mandatory provision could unintentionally reinforce gender stereotypes.
However, the Court clarified that the issue could still be considered at the policy level. It noted that the competent authority may examine the representation and explore the possibility of framing an appropriate policy after consulting relevant stakeholders.
Concerns Over Reinforcing Gender Stereotypes
During the hearing, the Bench cautioned that such petitions could inadvertently strengthen societal stereotypes about women and menstruation.
“These pleas are made to create fear, to call women inferior, that menstruation is something bad happening to them. This is an affirmative right. But think about the employer who needs to give paid leave,” the Court observed.
The judges also highlighted that a legally mandated menstrual leave policy could influence workplace perceptions and potentially affect the professional growth and opportunities available to women.
Petitioner Cites Existing Policies
Senior advocate M. R. Shamshad, appearing for the petitioner Shailendra Mani Tripathi, argued that certain states and institutions have already introduced measures to accommodate menstrual leave.
He pointed to examples from Kerala, where menstrual cycle relaxation has reportedly been introduced in schools. He also noted that several private companies have voluntarily implemented menstrual leave policies for employees.
In response, the Chief Justice acknowledged that voluntary measures were welcome but warned against imposing such provisions through mandatory legislation.
“Voluntarily given is excellent. The moment you say it is 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,” the Chief Justice remarked.
Court Leaves Door Open for Policy Discussion
Although the Court declined to entertain the PIL, it indicated that the matter could still be examined by the appropriate authorities through policy deliberations.
The Bench suggested that the issue of menstrual leave may be considered after broader consultations with stakeholders, including policymakers, employers, and institutions.
The case highlights the ongoing debate between workplace equality, health rights, and the risk of reinforcing gender stereotypes, an issue that continues to generate discussion in policy and legal circles across the country.
