'Employers will avoid hiring women': Supreme Court rejects menstrual leave plea

New Delhi (The Uttam Hindu): The Supreme Court has refused to hear a petition seeking special leave for working women and female students nationwide, in light of the difficulties they face during menstruation. Disposing of the petition, the court stated that the government should decide on a policy on this issue, and that consultation with all stakeholders is essential.

During the hearing, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that such petitions often create unnecessary fear. He remarked that it appears as if an attempt is being made to prove that women are weak and that menstruation causes them some harm. The court noted that the petitioners have already presented their views on this matter to the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development. Therefore, the Ministry should consider discussing the issue with all concerned parties and formulate an appropriate policy.

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi, who was part of the bench, raised an important issue. He asked how employers, if such a right were enacted into law, would view the situation. He also asked how employers, who would be required to provide additional paid leave to female employees, would view this situation. Senior advocate M.R. Shamshad, representing the petitioner, informed the court that such exemptions have been granted to female students in schools in Kerala. Some private companies in the country are also voluntarily offering menstrual leave.

The Chief Justice responded that it was a good thing if companies were voluntarily offering such leave. However, he also expressed concern that if it were made a legal requirement, some employers might avoid hiring women, negatively impacting their careers. The petition argued that while pregnancy leave is provided, there is no such provision for menstruation. It also argued that some states and companies are providing two days of leave per month, so all states should be directed to enact similar regulations. However, the Supreme Court declined to issue any directives in this matter.