Menstrual leave is a fundamental right under Article 21, requiring mandatory enforcement across all employment sectors.

The petitioner, a hotel worker engaged in arduous manual labor, sought the implementation of the Menstrual Leave Policy across all establishments, including small commercial units in the unorganized sector

In 2024, the State of Karnataka constituted a committee to examine the formulation of a Menstrual Leave Policy, which culminated in a Law Commission report and subsequent Government Orders dated 20.11.2025 and 02.12.2025

These orders granted one day of paid leave per month to women workers in registered factories and establishments

A formal Bill titled the “Karnataka Menstrual Leave and Hygiene Bill, 2025” was also tabled before the Legislature

The petitioner filed this writ seeking a mandamus to enforce these policies uniformly, particularly for vulnerable workers in the unorganized sector

1. Whether the right to menstrual health and leave is a facet of the right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution

2. Whether the State is constitutionally empowered and obligated to make special provisions for women regarding menstrual hygiene and workplace conditions under Articles 15(3) and 42

3. Whether the current Menstrual Leave Policy should be extended and enforced within the unorganized sector

Article 21 of the Constitution, interpreting the right to life to include the right to live with dignity and access to menstrual health

Article 15(3) (special provisions for women), Article 39(e) (protecting the health and strength of workers), and Article 42 (securing just and humane conditions of work)

Jaya Thakur (Dr.) v. Union of India, which recognized menstrual hygiene as an integral part of substantive dignity

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), which emphasized that benefits must extend to workers regardless of the nature of their employment

Executive power of the State under Article 162 to formulate policy measures

The Court reasoned that menstruation is a natural biological reality, often accompanied by debilitating physical and psychological challenges such as dysmenorrhea and PMDD, which affect workplace productivity and dignity

Applying Jaya Thakur, the Court held that failing to provide menstrual management measures subjects women to stigma and humiliation, violating their bodily autonomy

The Court observed that "substantive equality" requires the law to acknowledge biological differences and provide accommodations rather than maintaining formal, blind equality

While the State’s current orders were largely confined to the organized sector, the Court analyzed the "coalesced vulnerability" of women in the unorganized sector (e.g., daily wage laborers and domestic workers), noting they lack the same legal protections and facilities

The State's duty to improve public health under Article 47 and provide humane work conditions under Article 42 necessitates a more inclusive approach that taps into the unorganized sector through sensitization and facilitative mechanisms

The Court held that menstrual dignity is a fundamental right and ordered that upon the Bill's enactment, the State must frame Rules to give it meaningful effect

In the interregnum, the State was directed to issue guidelines and administrative instructions to ensure uniform and rigorous implementation across all sectors, including the unorganized labor sector

The Court clarified that such special provisions do not violate Article 14 but rather provide substantive meaning to the guarantee of equality