The Supreme Court on Friday disposed of a writ petition seeking paid menstrual leave for women across workplaces. The court asked the Central government to consider the petitioner’s representation and examine the possibility of framing a menstrual leave policy after consulting stakeholders.

However, the court cautioned that making menstrual leave mandatory through legislation could unintentionally affect women’s employment prospects. 

During the hearing, the Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised concerns that compulsory menstrual leave could discourage employers from hiring women. 

The judges observed that such a policy might create a perception that women are less available for work during certain periods, which could reduce their participation in the workforce.

The Bench also questioned the locus of the petitioner, Shailendra Mani Tripathi, noting that no woman had approached the Court on the issue.

The CJI also asked the petitioner to consider the long-term implications of such a policy. "You are creating a right of taking a leave in month, the entire private sector..." CJI Kant said. "This can be harmful to their growth. You do not know the kind of mindset created at the workplace," he added. 

When Senior Advocate M R Shamsad, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that several private organisations voluntarily offer period leave, the Bench responded that voluntary measures differ from mandatory legal provisions, the news report said.

"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 career of women. Nobody will give them responsibilities, even in judicial services, a normal trial will not be assigned to them," CJI Kant said.

Shamsad argued that only the Karnataka government has recently framed a menstrual leave policy. He also pointed out that Odisha has had a policy since 1992, while Kerala has allowed relaxation in schools.

The Bench, however, showed reluctance to intervene. "These petitions are deeply rooted, designed PILs. You are not a bona fide petitioner. 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," CJI Kant said. 

CJI Kant also noted that the petitioner himself was not personally affected and that no woman had approached the court.

This is the third writ petition filed by the petitioner on the same issue. In the current petition, the petitioner sought directions to the Centre, states and Union Territories to frame laws or policies recognising the difficulties faced by women during menstrual conditions such as dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, adenomyosis and pelvic inflammatory disease, the news report said. 

He also requested directions to address gaps in existing provisions related to leave for working women and female students under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 

Disposing of the petition, the Bench directed authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation for a possible policy framework. 

"The petitioner has made a representation to the authority. It seems to us that whatever was required to be done at the end of the petitioner, he has done for the welfare of young women. It is not necessary for the petitioner to approach the court time and again and seek a positive mandamus," the court said.