‘These schemes call women inferior’: CJI-led Supreme Court judges reject plea on menstrual leave

NEW DELHI: India’s Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a nationwide policy to grant menstrual leave to female students and employees, arguing that enforcing such a provision could inadvertently reinforce gender stereotypes and could affect women’s employment prospects.However, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the competent authority can examine the submissions of the petitioner and consider the possibility of formulating a menstrual leave policy after consulting relevant stakeholders.The court disposed of the PIL and directed the authorities to take appropriate decision regarding agency.

“These pleas are intended to create fear, calling women inferior – menstruation is a bad thing for them. This is considered an affirmative right. But one must also consider the employer who must grant paid leave,” the judges observed.The petition was filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi.During the hearing, the Chief Justice expressed concern about the possible social consequences of legislating for mandatory menstrual leave, noting that such measures could inadvertently reinforce stereotypes about women.

Welcome voluntary policies: CJI takes example of Kerala

Senior advocate MR Shamshad, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that certain states and institutions have already taken steps to accommodate menstrual leave.He cited the example of Kerala, where relaxations were introduced in schools, adding that some private companies had voluntarily provided menstrual leave to their employees.In response, the Chief Justice welcomed voluntary policies but warned against enforcing such provisions by law.“It is excellent to give voluntarily. Once you make it legally compulsory, no one will give them jobs. No one will give them judicial or government jobs – their careers will be over. They will say, after informing everyone, you should sit at home,” he said.The judges also noted the impact these measures could have on workplace perceptions and women’s career advancement.Taking note of these submissions, the court held that the petitioner had already submitted representations to the concerned authorities and said that there was no need to approach the court multiple times seeking discharge of duty.