Menstrual Dignity as a Constitutional Right: The Supreme Court PIL in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and the Case for National Institutional Guidelines
By Guru Legal
Keywords
menstrual dignity; Supreme Court Bar Association; PIL; WP (Criminal) 479/2025; right to health; Article 21; gender justice; institutional guidelines; workplace; educational institutions; bodily autonomy; privacy; discrimination; menstrual hygiene management; fundamental rights
Abstract
The Supreme Court of India’s issuance of notice in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 479 of 2025, filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), marks a significant judicial engagement with the constitutional dimensions of menstrual dignity. The PIL seeks comprehensive, nationwide guidelines to protect the dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy of women and girls facing menstruation and related gynaecological conditions in institutional settings including workplaces and educational institutions. This article examines the constitutional and legal foundations of menstrual dignity as a component of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, the existing legislative and policy framework addressing menstrual health in India, the specific violations and gaps that prompted the SCBA PIL, and the standards that national institutional guidelines on menstrual dignity should meet. The article argues that the right to menstrual dignity is a constitutionally cognisable entitlement grounded in Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21, and that the state’s failure to provide adequate institutional frameworks constitutes a violation of the fundamental rights of women and girls.
I. Introduction
Menstruation, as a physiological reality experienced by approximately half the Indian population for a significant portion of their lives, has historically been treated as a private matter excluded from the domain of public law and institutional regulation. The consequences of this exclusion have been profound: women and girls in workplaces, educational institutions, correctional facilities, and other institutional settings have routinely been denied adequate facilities for menstrual hygiene management, subjected to discriminatory practices premised on cultural taboos, and denied reasonable accommodation for menstrual health conditions that affect their capacity to work and study. These denials constitute violations of the constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and personal liberty.
The Supreme Court Bar Association’s Public Interest Litigation in WP (Criminal) No. 479 of 2025 brings these constitutional dimensions of menstrual dignity before the Supreme Court of India. The PIL, which has been admitted with the issuance of notice to the Union of India and other respondents, seeks the formulation of comprehensive national guidelines that address the full spectrum of institutional obligations towards women and girls in relation to menstruation, including the provision of adequate sanitation facilities, protection from discriminatory practices, and reasonable accommodation for menstrual health conditions. The Supreme Court’s engagement with this petition represents a significant extension of the constitutional jurisprudence on the right to health, bodily autonomy, and gender equality.
This article proceeds as follows. Part II examines the constitutional foundations of menstrual dignity under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. Part III surveys the existing legal and policy framework. Part IV analyses the specific institutional failures and legal gaps that the SCBA PIL seeks to address. Part V considers the content of proposed national guidelines. Part VI concludes.
II. Constitutional Foundations of Menstrual Dignity
The constitutional foundation of menstrual dignity as a legally cognisable right derives primarily from Article 21 of the Constitution of India 1950, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of Article 21 in a series of landmark decisions has established that the right to life encompasses a cluster of dignity-related rights including the right to health, the right to a clean environment, the right to privacy, and the right to live with human dignity. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608, the Court held that the right to life includes the right to live with basic human dignity and all that goes along with it. The denial of adequate menstrual hygiene facilities in institutional settings, or the subjection of women and girls to discriminatory or humiliating treatment on grounds of menstruation, clearly falls within the category of deprivations of the right to live with dignity.
Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of the laws. Institutional practices that treat menstruating women differently denying them access to facilities, subjecting them to exclusionary practices, or penalising absence related to menstrual health conditions without adequate accommodation constitute discrimination on grounds of sex, violating Article 14 read with Article 15(1), which prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex. Article 15(3), which permits special provisions for women and children, provides the constitutional authority for affirmative institutional measures to address the specific needs of menstruating women and girls.
The right to privacy, as a fundamental right under Article 21 recognised by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, encompasses bodily autonomy and informational privacy in relation to health matters. The compelled disclosure of menstrual health information in institutional settings, or the subjection of a woman or girl’s menstrual status to scrutiny by institutional authorities, would constitute a violation of the right to privacy as construed in Puttaswamy.
III. The Existing Legal and Policy Framework
The existing legal and policy framework addressing menstrual health and dignity in India is fragmented and inadequate. The primary legislative instrument addressing menstrual hygiene is the National Guidelines for Menstrual Hygiene Management for School Girls issued by the Ministry of Education in 2015, which provides standards for the provision of toilets and sanitation facilities in schools with a focus on rural areas. These guidelines, however, are non-binding and do not address workplaces, higher educational institutions, correctional facilities, or the broader institutional settings in which women and girls encounter menstrual health challenges.
The Maternity Benefit Act 1961, as amended in 2017, provides for paid maternity leave and related protections for women employees in the organised sector, but does not address the specific needs of women experiencing menstrual health conditions. Several state governments have enacted menstrual leave policies for government employees, and a small number of private employers have voluntarily adopted such policies, but no comprehensive national legislation mandates paid menstrual leave or reasonable accommodation for menstrual health conditions across all sectors.
The Menstruation Benefits Bill, 2017, introduced as a Private Member’s Bill in the Rajya Sabha by Member of Parliament Ninong Ering, proposed paid menstrual leave and other protections, but has not been enacted. India thus lacks a comprehensive national legislative framework specifically addressing menstrual rights and dignity in institutional settings, creating the legislative vacuum that the SCBA PIL seeks to have addressed through judicial intervention.
IV. Institutional Failures and the SCBA PIL
The SCBA PIL identifies systemic institutional failures across multiple domains that constitute violations of the constitutional rights of women and girls. In educational institutions, students continue to be denied access to functional gender-segregated toilets with adequate water supply and sanitary disposal facilities. Female students are reportedly penalised for missing examinations or classes due to menstrual health conditions without any formal accommodation policy. Cultural taboos premised on notions of menstrual impurity are, in some institutional contexts, enforced through discriminatory rules that restrict the movement, participation, or activities of menstruating women and girls.
In workplaces including, notably, the legal profession and judicial institutions women professionals lack formal policies addressing menstrual health accommodation. The absence of designated sanitation facilities in many court complexes, law offices, and government departments disproportionately burdens women professionals who must manage menstrual health needs without adequate infrastructure.
These institutional failures disproportionately burden women and girls from marginalised socio-economic backgrounds, who are least able to manage menstrual health needs independently and most dependent on institutional provision. The constitutional imperative of substantive equality, as elaborated by the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1, requires that formal equality be supplemented by measures that address the structural disadvantages faced by historically marginalised groups.
V. Recommendations for National Guidelines
National guidelines on menstrual dignity in institutional settings should address, at minimum, the following dimensions.
Sanitation infrastructure: all institutional settings employing or admitting women and girls should be required to provide adequate gender-segregated toilets with running water, sanitary disposal facilities, and menstrual hygiene products at no cost, with compliance verified by the appropriate regulatory authority.
Reasonable accommodation: workplaces and educational institutions should be required to adopt formal policies providing for reasonable accommodation for women experiencing menstrual health conditions, including paid menstrual leave or flexible attendance arrangements, without penalty or disclosure obligations beyond what is strictly necessary.
Non-discrimination: all institutional rules, practices, or customs that restrict the participation, movement, or activities of women or girls on grounds of menstruation should be expressly prohibited, with appropriate grievance redress mechanisms and sanctions for violations.
Awareness and sensitisation: institutional guidelines should require mandatory sensitisation programmes for all staff and students to address cultural taboos and discriminatory attitudes relating to menstruation, in alignment with the constitutional values of dignity and equality.
VI. Conclusion
The Supreme Court Bar Association’s PIL in WP (Criminal) No. 479 of 2025 represents a constitutionally significant demand that the Supreme Court of India give practical content to the right to menstrual dignity as a component of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The constitutional foundations of this right are well-established: the guarantees of dignity, bodily autonomy, privacy, and gender equality provide a robust basis for the recognition and enforcement of menstrual dignity as a fundamental right. The existing legislative and policy framework, however, is manifestly inadequate to give effect to these constitutional entitlements, leaving women and girls across India’s institutional landscape without the protection that the Constitution demands.
The formulation of comprehensive national guidelines on menstrual dignity covering infrastructure, accommodation, non-discrimination, and awareness is not merely a matter of progressive social policy; it is a constitutional obligation of the Indian state. The Supreme Court’s engagement with the SCBA PIL is an opportunity to give that obligation binding institutional expression.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. What does the SCBA PIL in WP (Criminal) No. 479 of 2025 seek?
The PIL filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association seeks comprehensive, nationwide guidelines to protect the dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy of women and girls facing menstruation and related gynaecological conditions in institutional settings including workplaces and educational institutions. It addresses the systemic absence of regulatory standards around menstrual health across India’s institutional landscape.
Q2. Is menstrual dignity a constitutionally protected right in India?
Yes. Menstrual dignity derives from Article 21’s guarantee of the right to live with human dignity, the right to health, and the right to bodily autonomy and privacy as recognised in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1. It is further grounded in Articles 14 and 15, which prohibit gender-based discrimination. The denial of adequate menstrual hygiene facilities or the subjection of women and girls to discriminatory institutional practices on grounds of menstruation constitutes a violation of these constitutional guarantees.
Q3. Is there existing legislation in India specifically addressing menstrual rights?
India lacks a comprehensive national legislation specifically addressing menstrual rights in institutional settings. The National Guidelines for Menstrual Hygiene Management for School Girls (2015) are non-binding and limited in scope. The Maternity Benefit Act 1961 does not address menstrual health conditions. Several state governments have adopted policies for government employees, and the Menstruation Benefits Bill, 2017 was introduced but not enacted, leaving a significant legislative gap.
Q4. What should national guidelines on menstrual dignity include?
National guidelines should address four dimensions: sanitation infrastructure mandating adequate gender-segregated facilities with water supply and sanitary disposal in all institutional settings; reasonable accommodation policies providing paid menstrual leave or flexible arrangements without penalty; non-discrimination provisions prohibiting restrictive practices premised on cultural taboos; and awareness programmes requiring institutional sensitisation on menstrual health and dignity.
Q5. How does the right to privacy under Article 21 protect women in relation to menstrual health?
The right to privacy, as a fundamental right recognised in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, encompasses bodily autonomy and informational privacy in relation to health matters. The compelled disclosure of menstrual health information in institutional settings, or the subjection of a woman’s menstrual status to institutional scrutiny without consent, would constitute a violation of the informational and bodily autonomy dimensions of the right to privacy.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14, 15, 19, 21.
Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (as amended 2017).
National Guidelines for Menstrual Hygiene Management for School Girls (Ministry of Education, 2015).
Writ Petition (Criminal) No 479 of 2025 (Supreme Court Bar Association v Union of India).
Justice KS Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
Francis Coralie Mullin v Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608.
Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1.
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v State of West Bengal (1996) 4 SCC 37.
Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241.
Secondary Sources
UNICEF and WHO, Progress on Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 2000-2022 (UNICEF/WHO, 2023).
WaterAid India, Menstrual Hygiene Management in India: The Role of Sanitation Infrastructure (WaterAid, 2021).
Upendra Baxi, The Future of Human Rights, 3rd ed (Oxford University Press, 2012).
Indira Jaising (ed), Handbook on the Law of Domestic Violence (LexisNexis, 2009).
Flavia Agnes, Law and Gender Inequality: The Politics of Women’s Rights in India (Oxford University Press, 1999).
MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 8th ed (LexisNexis, 2018).
Law Commission of India, Report No 243 on Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (Government of India, 2012).
NITI Aayog, Annual Report 2022-23: Achieving SDGs in India (Government of India, 2023).
