Menstrual Leave Row: Karnataka High Court To Hear Challenge In January 2026, Says Matter Is Of 'Public Importance'

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (December 10) said it will hear in January 2026 a batch of petitions challenging state government order mandating paid menstrual leaves in all registered industrial establishments, remarking that the matter is of "public importance". 

Justice Jyoti M had on Tuesday in an interim order stayed the government notification. However, the same was recalled hours later, after Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty mentioned the matter and said that the interim order passed is in contravention of the Supreme Court's judgment. Further, he stated that he would personally appear in the matter on Wednesday and make a submission on the prayer for interim relief.

The Court is hearing a petition filed by Bangalore Hotels Association and Management of Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems Limited, challenging the November 20 government notification, mandating industrial establishments registered under various laws, to provide one day paid menstrual leave per month to all permanent, contract, outsourced women employees.

During the hearing today the court was informed that the state government had filed its objections to the petition. The court asked if the notification applies to all sectors to which the Advocate General Shetty said that it did. Meanwhile the petitioner's counsel said that the notification pertains to five types of establishments. 

The AG referred to Article 42 of the Constitution and said that it pertains to provision for just and humane condition of work and maternity relief. He referred to Article 15 (3) and to Supreme Court order directing states to provide this relief.

"Ours is a progressive legislature. Throughout the world such leave is available. Law commission has gone into it. Every stake holder has been heard before issuing notification," Shetty added. 

The court at this stage orally said, "You have filed detailed objection. We will do one thing. Advocate Prashanth (for petitioner) you go through it and file rejoinder if any. We have to hear arguments in favour and against".

The petitioner's counsel said that the matter can be argued till then and the government must not precipitate.

The AG however said, "We will implement in full". 

The court at this stage remarked, "This is a matter of public importance. We will hear after winter vacation". 

However advocate Prashanth BK for the petitioner's said that they were not objecting to the power of the State government, however it was objecting to state government implementing the leave by an "executive order" when there is "no provision in statutes". He submitted that a date may be fixed and the petitioner is ready to argue on merits.

The court thereafter in its order dictated: "AG appears and submits that objections are filed in Bangalore Hotels Association and same may be excepted for other cases also. Rejoinder if any to be filed by the petitioners. Counsel for petitioner has filed memo that certain questions of law have been raised and submission is noted and memo is placed on record". 

It noted that an application had been filed by All India Central Council of Trade Unions (AICCTU) and other parties seeking impleadment. The court granted time to the petitioner to file its objections to the application. The matter is now listed on January 20, 2026. 

The plea states that currently the association has around 1540 establishments/owners as its active members. It has been formed with the purpose of promoting and protecting the interest of the members through representation, consultation, advocacy, education besides fostering harmonious relations between its members.

It states that the statutes under which the establishments are registered primarily regulate health, welfare and overall working conditions of the employees including hours of work, weekly holidays, leave with wages etc.

That apart, clause 9 of the Model Standing Orders appended to the Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, mandates the employers to provide leave with pay as provided under the Factories Act, 1948, and other holidays in accordance with law, contract, custom and usage.

Further, clause 10 of the Model Standing Orders provides for casual leave and a workmen may be granted casual leave of absence with or without pay not exceeding 10 days in a calendar year.

It states that these establishments are registered under various laws such as the Factories Act, Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, Plantations Labour Act, the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, and the Motor Transport Workers Act, and the leaves are restricted to 12 days per annum.

The plea states that there is a comprehensive statutory framework through the aforesaid statutes mandating the employers to provide sufficient leave to the employees. However, the notification issued by the state government is not supported by any legislative enactment.

In other words, there is no specific provision in the statutes mentioned hereinabove mandating employers to provide menstrual leave to the female employees and as such, the Government is not empowered to direct the industrial establishments to provide menstrual leave by way of an executive order.

The plea claims that the respondent instead of leaving it to the employers to decide appropriately on granting of menstrual leave as part of their HR policies, has unnecessarily interfered in the affairs of the employers.

The plea seeks quashing of the notification as being unconstitutional and ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Case Title: BANGALORE HOTELS ASSOCIATION (R) AND Government of Karnataka

Case No: WP WP 36659/2025 c/w WP 37122/2025

Appearance: Advocate Prashanth B K for Petitioner

Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty a/w Additional Advocate General Prathima Honnapura for Respondents