NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to accept a PIL seeking a national policy providing menstrual leave to female students and workers, stating that no one would give them jobs in such a scenario and such a ruling would inadvertently reinforce gender stereotypes.
However, the Supreme Court said that the competent authority may consider representation and consider the possibility of formulating a policy on menstrual leave after consulting all relevant stakeholders.
Accordingly, the PIL was disposed of with the authorities directed to take the appropriate decision regarding representation.
A bench composed of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalia Bagchi said: “These appeals aim to create fear, describing women as inferior, and that menstruation is a bad thing that happens to them… This is a positive right… But think about the employer who needs to grant paid leave.”
The bench was hearing the PIL moved by Shailendra Mani Tripathi.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice raised concerns about the potential social consequences of mandating menstrual leave through legislation.
He noted that such appeals could inadvertently reinforce stereotypes about women.
Senior advocate Mr. Shamshad, who represented the petitioner, noted that some states and institutions had already taken steps to accommodate menstrual leave.
Citing the example of Kerala, where relaxation was introduced in schools, he added that many private companies have voluntarily provided this leave to employees.
In response, the CJI said voluntary policies were welcome but cautioned against making such provisions mandatory through law.
“Donating voluntarily is excellent. The moment you say it is mandatory under law, no one will give them jobs. No one will take them for judicial or government jobs; their careers will be over. They will say you should sit at home after informing everyone,” the CJI said.
The bench also highlighted the potential impact of such measures on workplace perceptions and women’s professional growth.
After taking note of the petitioner’s submissions, the court said that the petitioner had already filed a complaint with the relevant authorities.
The court stated that it is not necessary for the petitioner to approach the court repeatedly to obtain an injunction.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
