'Compulsory leave may harm careers': Supreme Court rejects plea for paid mandatory menstrual leave
While acknowledging the severity of health conditions like endometriosis and fibroids, the bench cautioned that codifying monthly leave into law might inadvertently revive regressive mindsets
- Mar 13, 2026,
- Updated Mar 13, 2026 3:07 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to institutionalise paid menstrual leave across all workplaces, warning that a legal mandate intended to support women could backfire by making them "unattractive" to the private sector job market.
While acknowledging the severity of health conditions like endometriosis and fibroids, the bench cautioned that codifying monthly leave into law might inadvertently revive regressive mindsets, leading employers to view women as less capable of sustained professional responsibility.
A risk to career growth A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi examined the petition filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi, which sought to recognise the physiological challenges women face. However, the judges were sceptical about the long-term impact on female workforce participation.
"You are creating a right of taking a leave in month, the entire private sector. This can be harmful to their growth," CJI Kant said, adding, "You do not know the kind of mindset created at the workplace."
The Chief Justice further questioned the motivation behind the PIL, noting that no woman had personally approached the court for this relief.
"This is basically only to create a type of impression in young women that you still have some natural issues, and you are not at par with male persons, and you cannot work like them during a particular time," he remarked.
Market realities and employment
Justice Bagchi expanded on the practical hurdles, suggesting that mandatory requirements could skew hiring preferences.
"Affirmative action in respect of females is constitutionally recognised. But look at the practical reality in the job market. The more unattractive the human resource, the less is the possibility of assumption in the market," Justice Bagchi said.
The Court drew a sharp line between progressive corporate culture and rigid legal requirements. While Senior Advocate MR Shamsad pointed out that Odisha, Karnataka, and various private firms already offer such benefits, the bench remained firm that these should remain discretionary.
"Voluntarily they are giving, then it is excellent. That is a very good thing. But the moment you introduce it as a compulsory condition in law, you do not know the damage it will do to the careers of women. Nobody will give them responsibilities," the Chief Justice stated.
Path forward: Government consultation
Despite dismissing the plea, the Court recognised the underlying health concerns, ranging from severe pain to pelvic inflammatory disease. Noting that this was the petitioner’s third attempt to raise the issue, the bench directed the Central government to take the lead.
The Court asked the Centre to examine the petitioner's representation and consider whether a formal menstrual leave policy could be developed after thorough consultation with different stakeholders.
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to institutionalise paid menstrual leave across all workplaces, warning that a legal mandate intended to support women could backfire by making them "unattractive" to the private sector job market.
While acknowledging the severity of health conditions like endometriosis and fibroids, the bench cautioned that codifying monthly leave into law might inadvertently revive regressive mindsets, leading employers to view women as less capable of sustained professional responsibility.
A risk to career growth A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi examined the petition filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi, which sought to recognise the physiological challenges women face. However, the judges were sceptical about the long-term impact on female workforce participation.
"You are creating a right of taking a leave in month, the entire private sector. This can be harmful to their growth," CJI Kant said, adding, "You do not know the kind of mindset created at the workplace."
The Chief Justice further questioned the motivation behind the PIL, noting that no woman had personally approached the court for this relief.
"This is basically only to create a type of impression in young women that you still have some natural issues, and you are not at par with male persons, and you cannot work like them during a particular time," he remarked.
Market realities and employment
Justice Bagchi expanded on the practical hurdles, suggesting that mandatory requirements could skew hiring preferences.
"Affirmative action in respect of females is constitutionally recognised. But look at the practical reality in the job market. The more unattractive the human resource, the less is the possibility of assumption in the market," Justice Bagchi said.
The Court drew a sharp line between progressive corporate culture and rigid legal requirements. While Senior Advocate MR Shamsad pointed out that Odisha, Karnataka, and various private firms already offer such benefits, the bench remained firm that these should remain discretionary.
"Voluntarily they are giving, then it is excellent. That is a very good thing. But the moment you introduce it as a compulsory condition in law, you do not know the damage it will do to the careers of women. Nobody will give them responsibilities," the Chief Justice stated.
Path forward: Government consultation
Despite dismissing the plea, the Court recognised the underlying health concerns, ranging from severe pain to pelvic inflammatory disease. Noting that this was the petitioner’s third attempt to raise the issue, the bench directed the Central government to take the lead.
The Court asked the Centre to examine the petitioner's representation and consider whether a formal menstrual leave policy could be developed after thorough consultation with different stakeholders.