Chief Justice Surya Kant warns that mandating paid menstrual leave by law would backfire, making female candidates “unattractive” in a competitive private job market.
The dream of a nationwide menstrual leave policy in India just hit a brick wall at the Supreme Court. On Friday, the top court flatly refused to entertain a petition seeking a legal mandate for period leave, delivering a blunt reality check on how the job market actually works.
Chief Justice Surya Kant didn’t mince words. He warned that if the government forces companies to provide monthly paid leave, the private sector will simply stop hiring women altogether. It’s a harsh take, but the bench stood firm: some “affirmative actions” do more harm than good.
“The moment you introduce it as a compulsory condition in law, you don’t know the damage it will do to the career of women,” Justice Kant told the courtroom. He went even further, suggesting that even in the judiciary, a normal trial might not be assigned to a woman if such a law existed.
The petition, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, pushed for a uniform national policy. He argued that conditions like endometriosis and dysmenorrhea aren’t just “cramps”—they’re debilitating medical realities.
But the court wasn’t buying the legislative route. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, sitting on the bench, pointed to the “business model” of modern employers. He asked a pointed question: will an employer be happy with competing claims from different genders?
The bench observed that the more “unattractive” a human resource becomes due to legal baggage, the less chance they have in the open market. It’s a cold, calculated view of labor.
So, is the door closed forever? Not quite. The court acknowledged that private companies like Zomato and states like Karnataka or Bihar already have voluntary policies.
“Voluntarily they are giving, then it is excellent,” the Chief Justice remarked. But there’s a massive gulf between a company choosing to be progressive and a judge forcing a CEO’s hand.
This was Tripathi’s third attempt to get the court to move. Similar pleas were swatted away in February 2023 and July 2024. The court seems tired of the repeat performance, noting that the petitioner is a man and not a single woman had actually approached the court to demand this specific relief.
Critics are already firing back. Public health experts argue that by calling women “unattractive” hires, the court is reinforcing the very taboos it claims to worry about. If the law doesn’t protect a woman’s biological reality, who will?
The court ultimately tossed the ball back to the Centre. It directed the Union Government to look at the representation and consult with stakeholders. But don’t hold your breath for a federal law.
The message from the highest court in the land is loud and clear: if you want period leave, don’t look to the judges. The market has its own rules, and they aren’t always kind.
What happens next? The Ministry of Women and Child Development now has the “representation” on its desk. Whether they turn it into a policy or let it gather dust will determine if India’s female workforce gets a break or remains stuck in a “slave” to the clock culture.
