The Supreme Court of India on Friday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition that demanded a nationwide mandate for menstrual leave. The reason cited by the Apex Court was that the move might inadvertently “hamper” professional prospects for women.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that although menstrual health was a major concern for women, legislation on compulsory leave might result in a bias in the job market for women.
The “Practical Reality” of the Job Market
During the course of the hearing, the Bench expressed concerns that legislation on compulsory leave might result in women appearing “less attractive” for business productivity.
“Voluntarily given is excellent. But the moment you make it compulsory in law, nobody will give them jobs,” the CJI observed. “Nobody will take them in the judiciary or government jobs—their career will be over. They [employers] will say you should sit at home.”
The petitioner, Shailendra Mani Tripathi, had argued that several states, like Bihar, Odisha, and more recently, Karnataka, had introduced a form of period leave. He had also pointed out that the Kerala state government had introduced relaxations in schools.
Nevertheless, the Court reminded everyone that it was a complex “policy issue” and not a “court issue.” It directed the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development to look into the petitioner’s representation and formulate a model policy after consulting all stakeholders, including medical experts and industry experts.
Join our whatsapp group for Latest updates
Click Here for Chhattisgarh News
Click Here for Entertainment News