India: Karnataka High Court Directs the Implementation of the Menstrual Leave Policy
Authors: Avik Biswas, Ivana Chatterjee, and Kevin Kennedy
The High Court of Karnataka, by order dated 15 April 2026, upheld the constitutional validity of the State of Karnataka’s Menstrual Leave Policy, 2025. The Court recognised menstrual leave as a fundamental right of women employees, intrinsically connected to Articles 14, 15(3), 21, 39(e), and 42 of the Constitution of India.
Background
In the case of Chandravva Hanamant Gokavi v. State of Karnataka and Ors[1], the High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench) examined a writ petition filed by a woman employed as a hotel worker in the unorganised sector, seeking implementation and enforcement of the State Government’s menstrual leave policy (“Policy”). The Policy was introduced pursuant to Government notification dated 12 November 2025 and a subsequent Government order dated 20 November 2025.
The Policy provided for 1 day of paid menstrual leave per month, subject to a maximum of 12 days per year, to women employees between 18 and 52 years of age working factories, commercial establishments, plantations and other specified establishments. The State Government had also tabled the Karnataka Menstrual Leave and Hygiene Bill, 2025 (“Bill”) before the legislature.
Contentions by the parties
The petitioner contended that despite the formulation of the Policy, women workers, particularly those engaged in physically demanding and low-paid work in the unorganised sector, continued to remain without meaningful access to the benefit of menstrual leave. The petitioner further submitted that women across organised and unorganised sectors are often compelled to undertake physically strenuous labour even during menstruation, and the denial of minimal respite during such periods renders working conditions unduly harsh.
The State Government, while supporting the policy and affirming its progressive intent, contended that practical difficulties existed in relation to monitoring and enforcement of the policy, particularly within the vast and heterogeneous unorganised sector. Further, the report of the Karnataka Law Commission and the Bill tabled before the legislature concerning menstrual leave demonstrated that the issue was under active legislative consideration and deliberation.
Observations by the High Court:
a) Menstrual leave in the context of dignity, health, and workplace justice
The Court, referring to the Supreme Court’s observations in the case of Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India[2], noted that the question of menstrual leave had already been recognised as a matter requiring policy consideration by the Government. The Supreme Court also had expressly clarified that State Governments were free to independently take appropriate decisions in that regard
The Court further observed that the State of Karnataka had taken active steps by constituting an expert committee, inviting stakeholder inputs, obtaining the opinion of the Karnataka Law Commission, and subsequently issuing an order and tabling the Bill before the legislature.
The Court observed that the Policy is rooted in the Constitution of India (“Constitution”), particularly Articles 15(3), 21, 39(e), and 42.
The Court observed that menstruation is a natural and indispensable facet of the reproductive cycle and that a demand for menstrual leave is not a plea for privilege, but an assertion of dignity, fairness, and humane understanding within workplaces.
It was further noted that the need for accommodation arises from the lived realities of menstruation, including dysmenorrhea, heavy bleeding, anaemia, hormonal and psychological symptoms, as well as associated conditions such as endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, and uterine fibroids.
b) Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution
The Court, referring the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Jaya Thakur (Dr.) v. Union of India[3], held that menstrual health forms part of the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had recognised menstrual health and hygiene measures as inseparable from dignified existence, bodily autonomy, privacy, and reproductive health of women.
The Court held that any measure undertaken by the Government to secure menstrual health and dignity directly engages and advances the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21.
c) Right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution
The Court expressly rejected any superficial objection founded on Article 14, observing that while men and women stand equal in the eyes of the law, they are biologically distinct, and acknowledging such differences in matters concerning health, dignity, and bodily autonomy does not transgress equality, but rather gives it substantive meaning.
The Court held that Article 15(3) empowers the Government to make special provisions for women and children, while Articles 39(e) and 42 require the Government to protect the health and strength of workers and secure just and humane conditions of work.
In this context, the Court observed that the executive power of the State Government under Article 162 furnishes the authority to translate these constitutional aspirations into policy measures. The Government orders and the Bill were, therefore, held to be legitimate expressions of the State Government’s obligation to secure substantive equality and humane labour conditions.
d) Observations made by the Court on the proposed Bill
The Court noted that the Bill envisages a broader statutory framework extending benefits not only to women employees, but also to menstruating students and transgender persons. The Bill proposes, among other things, up to 2 days of menstrual leave per month, provisions regarding menstrual hygiene products and disposal facilities, observance of a ‘Menstrual Hygiene Day’, the constitution of a dedicated authority, appointment of enforcement officers, and penalties for denial of menstrual leave or discriminatory treatment.
In this regard, the Court stated that the State Government’s present policy was not an isolated or ad hoc step, but part of a structured and evolving legal response to menstrual health and workplace dignity.
e) On unorganised sector workers and the need for a facilitative mechanism
The Court observed that women workers in the unorganised sector cannot be denied the benefit of welfare-oriented labour protections merely because implementation is administratively difficult.
While recognising that the organised sector may be regulated through Government orders and subsequent legislation, the Court held that the unorganised sector would require a more facilitative mechanism. It therefore became incumbent upon the State Government to undertake comprehensive measures aimed at sensitising all sectors, both organised and unorganised, through sustained efforts.
f) On comparative and international developments:
The Court also referred to global practices and legislative developments in several jurisdictions including Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Zambia, and the former Soviet Union to note that menstrual leave has increasingly been recognised as a legitimate labour and human dignity issue.
The Court further referred to observations of the World Health Organization treating menstrual health as a health and human rights concern, requiring access to accurate information, adequate products, safe sanitation, and stigma-free environments. In this regard, the Court highlighted a broader and evolving consensus in favour of acknowledging menstruation within labour welfare frameworks.
g) Operative directions
Given the facts and circumstances of the matter, the Court directed the strict and faithful implementation of the existing Policy pending enactment of the Bill. The Court further directed that upon enactment of the legislation, the State Government shall, without undue delay, frame appropriate rules to give full and meaningful effect to the statutory mandate.
In the interregnum, the Court also held that the State Government must ensure effective operationalisation of the Policy through issuance of suitable guidelines, circulars, and administrative instructions necessary to secure uniform, consistent, and rigorous implementation across all sectors.
[1] Writ Petition No. 109734 of 2025.
[2] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1694.
[3] 2026 SCC OnLine SC 133.
Key Action Points for Human Resources and In-house Counsel
Employers in Karnataka should review internal policies to ensure that women employees are provided with 1 day of paid menstrual leave per month, subject to a maximum of 12 days per year, for eligible women employees in covered establishments. Employers should also closely monitor developments around the Karnataka Menstrual Leave and Hygiene Bill, 2025 and be prepared to align their policies with any statutory requirements once it is enacted.
