Court Refuses Petition On Menstrual Leave Policy
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court refused hearing a plea requesting mandatory leave for women during menstruation. The petition sought a legal framework granting female employees leave due to menstrual discomfort.
However, the court rejected the request on Friday, March thirteen, twenty twenty six. The bench said society should not portray women as weak individuals. Judges explained that the demand may appear reasonable initially. However, the court warned that compulsory paid period leave could ultimately harm women.
The bench stated that employers may avoid hiring women if law mandates such leave.
Bench Of CJI Suryakant And Justice Bagchi Heard Case
According to Live Law, a bench heard the matter during the proceedings. Chief Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi handled the hearing. During arguments, Chief Justice Suryakant criticised the reasoning behind such petitions.
He stated that these petitions often create unnecessary fear around menstruation. Furthermore, he said such pleas portray menstrual cycles as negative events. Additionally, the Chief Justice warned about workplace perceptions.
He told the petitioner that such policies could shape attitudes toward women’s maturity and professional development.
Lawyer Cites Kerala Policy And Private Companies
Meanwhile, senior advocate M R Shamshad represented the petitioner.
He argued that Kerala government already introduced such arrangements inside schools. Additionally, several private companies voluntarily provide menstrual leave. However, Chief Justice Suryakant responded to this argument firmly.He said voluntary policies by companies remain acceptable.
However, mandatory legal enforcement could create serious employment barriers. He warned that employers might avoid hiring women in private, judiciary, or government jobs. Consequently, such policies could damage women’s careers.
Justice Bagchi Raises Employer Concerns
Meanwhile, Justice Joymalya Bagchi commented during the hearing. He acknowledged that the idea appeared positive in principle. However, he urged consideration regarding employers. Employers would bear responsibility for providing paid leave.
Therefore, judges advised careful evaluation before implementing such measures.
Court Suggests Policy Consultation Instead
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court noted that the petitioner already submitted a representation to authorities. Judges said the petitioner had completed necessary procedural steps.
Therefore, the petitioner need not approach the court again seeking a writ order. Instead, the bench directed authorities to examine the representation. Authorities should consult stakeholders before drafting any policy framework.
