Menstrual Pain Leave: SC Declines To Intervene With PIL, States It As A Policy Matter

The Supreme Court on Friday disposed of a PIL seeking menstrual pain leaves for female students and working women across the country. But the SC allowed petitioners to make a representation to the Central Government.

A bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud stated that since there was a policy dimension in the case, the petitioner could file a representation before the Union Ministry of Women & Child Development.

CJI stated, “The petition, filed under Article 32, seeks leave for menstrual pain for students and woman employees. In light of the case’s policy implications, the petitioner may approach the Women and Child Ministry to file a representation. The petition has been disposed of.”

During the hearing, a caveator representing law students told the bench that if the plea was granted, then it would automatically operate as a disincentive to engage women as employees.

In response, the CJI stated, “What is your name? A PIL exists, but who are you? Yes, employers may be unwilling to hire. You have a valid point.”

“This is a policy issue. We didn’t want the law student to get involved, but she makes a valid point: if such leaves are required, it will de facto act as a disincentive to hire women as employees,” the CJI stated, asking the lawyer to make a representation to the Ministry of Women and Child Development.

Advocate Vishal Tiwary filed the petition, urging the Supreme Court to direct state governments to establish regulations for menstrual pain leave. The petition sought effective implementation of Section 14 of the Maternity Benefit Act, which calls for the appointment of inspectors to enforce the provisions of the Act.

The petition mentioned companies such as iVIPANAN, Zomato, Byju’s, and Swiggy where they provide paid menstrual leaves.

The PIL also stated that Meghalaya had issued a notification in 2014 for the appointment of such officers and that Bihar was the only state in India that provided special menstrual pain leave as part of a 1992 policy.

The plea further stated, “This Act violates Article 14 because it discriminates against women in the name of federalism and state policies. Despite the fact that women experience similar physiological and health issues during their menstrual cycles, they are treated differently in various Indian states. However, women, who have only one citizenship, that of India, must be treated equally and be granted equal rights; otherwise, this violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.”

The petition also stated that countries such as the United Kingdom, Wales, China, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, South Korea, Spain, and Zambia already allow menstrual pain leave in some form or another.