5 min readNew DelhiMar 22, 2026 05:57 PM IST First published on: Mar 22, 2026 at 05:57 PM ISTDear Express reader,In a country where women’s pain is routinely trivialised, any resistance to a formal, enforceable entitlement feels like yet another dismissal. And yet, on menstrual leave, the Supreme Court’s rejection of a blanket mandate — “…the moment you introduce it as a law, as a compulsory condition, you do not know the amount of damage you will do to their career,” the bench said while dismissing the PIL — may have articulated an uncomfortable truth. Not all well-meaning protections liberate.AdvertisementThis is reflected in how labour markets behave when costs are unevenly distributed. According to the Periodic Labour Force Survey 2023-2024, female labour force participation in India stands at around 41 per cent overall, but urban female participation remains around 25 per cent. Salaried women earn roughly about 20 per cent less than their male counterparts. In such an ecosystem, even a marginal increase in the perceived “risk” of hiring women can relocate the inequality from the workplace to the hiring process. Employers may simply opt for the “less complicated” hire: The male worker.For decades, a similar logic was marshalled against maternity leave — that mandating paid absence would deter employers from hiring women. Yet, over time, the Court has nudged the law towards a more expansive understanding of gender justice. In May 2025, in K Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu, it held maternity benefits to be a fundamental right.There can be an obvious counterargument to a comparison between maternity leave and menstrual leave: The first is finite, the second is recurring. But this distinction does not alter the constitutional principle. If anything, the recurring nature of menstrual discomfort strengthens the case for structural remedy over episodic concessions.AdvertisementThe Court, in fact, has recognised this. In Dr Jaya Thakur v. Government of India (2026), it declared menstrual health as an integral part of right to life, directing states to ensure access to sanitation and hygiene in all government and private schools. But on menstrual leave, the Court did what an earlier bench had done in July 2024: It placed the onus on the legislature to map the way forward.This hesitation exposes a deeper tension within feminist policymaking between protection and parity. But the question is not merely whether menstrual leave makes for wise policy — given the inherently masculine nature of workplaces, structural support should not come at the cost of reinforcing stereotypes — it must also address what better policy might look like.There is, in fact, a credible model worth considering. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) scheme already distributes the cost of sickness leave and maternity leave across employers, employees and the state. Extending the same to menstrual leave is not technically inconceivable. But it would require sustained political will and a meaningful expansion of coverage.There is also the easier, more immediate step: Extending the SC’s own articulation of an infrastructure of menstrual dignity to the workplace. This would require more than provisions of sanitary products. It would need an understanding of women’s health as a continuum, and a willingness to balance empathy with the compulsions of productivity.you may likeThe conversation around menstrual leave has to take into account another blind spot: The non-inclusion of blue-collar workers. In Karnataka, for instance, which introduced menstrual leave last year — a policy now under challenge in the high court — the mandate applies to women in government and private sectors. This means it covers the software engineer, the banking executive, the government schoolteacher. But it does not reach the domestic worker, the construction labourer, the agricultural worker, women who constitute the overwhelming majority of India’s female workforce. The discussion on menstrual leave has to find ways to extend protection to them as well.At its core, menstrual leave is a conversation not just about days off but about whether the workplace is willing to reckon with the body it expects women to leave at the door. The Supreme Court has shown it can hold two truths at once — that policy that subtly signals that women are less available or “reliable” workers risks undermining decades of hard-won progress, and that menstrual dignity is a constitutional value.The legislature must now do the harder work of holding that balance so that entrenched biases do not get in the way of women just doing their jobs.Stay well,Paromitaparomita.chakrabarti@expressindia.com