Menstruation Should Not Be Source Of Shame; School Boys Also Must Be Sensitised About It : Supreme Court
"When menstruation is discussed openly in schools, it ceases to be a source of shame," the Court observed.
The Supreme Court today(January 30) underscored the role of male teachers and staff in schools and men in general in ensuring that an ecosystem of stigma is not associated with menstruation so that adolescent girls can be equal participants in schools and have access to other opportunities. It said that even if schools have gender-segregated toilets and access to menstrual hygiene...
The Supreme Court today(January 30) underscored the role of male teachers and staff in schools and men in general in ensuring that an ecosystem of stigma is not associated with menstruation so that adolescent girls can be equal participants in schools and have access to other opportunities.
It said that even if schools have gender-segregated toilets and access to menstrual hygiene management, unless menstruation is not treated as a taboo by the school and its ecosystem, infrastructural efforts would remain underutilised.
"All that we are trying to convey is that, men have a multifaceted role in menstrual hygiene and awareness for school-going adolescent girls. On one hand, male teachers can integrate accurate, stigma-free information into lessons. At the same time, the staff would be responsive towards maintaining cleanliness and hygiene in toilets. On the other hand, peers and classmates would be empathetic and helpful."
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, while observing that the right to menstrual hygiene is a part of Article 21, has held that menstruation as a topic should not only be shared in hushed whispers. Young boys must be educated about the biological realities.
"Menstruation should not be a topic that is only shared in hushed whispers. It is crucial that boys are educated about the biological reality of menstruation. A male student, unsensitized towards the issue, may harass a menstruating girl child which may discourage her from attending school."
In this context, it has said that the responsibility lies with the male teachers. They must be sensitised to the needs of the girl child. "For instance, a request to the restroom or the sudden need to leave the classroom must be treated with sensitivity rather than straight dismissal or invasive questioning. To put briefly, we would say, ignorance breeds insensitivity, knowledge breeds empathy."
It stated that menstrual health is a shared responsibility rather than a woman's issue. Therefore, awareness must not be limited to girls, but must extend to boys, parents, and teachers.
"When menstruation is discussed openly in schools, it ceases to be a source of shame. It is recognized as what it is, a biological fact. Needless to say, it must be seen as a collective effort rather than a constitutional pull."
The Court today passed directions for the States and Union Territories to ensure that free sanitary pads are provided to girls in colleges and that there should be gender-segregated toilets in government and private schools.
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 15(3), 21, and 21A — Right to Education and Menstrual Health — The Supreme Court held that the right to education is a "multiplier right" that enables the exercise of other human rights and forms an integral part of the right to life and human dignity - Noted that inaccessibility to Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM) measures including clean gender segregated toilets, sanitary napkins, and safe disposal mechanisms constitutes a violation of the fundamental rights of adolescent girl students. [Paras 20-40]
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 — Substantive Equality — The principle of substantive equality requires the State to remedy structural, institutional, and systemic disadvantages - Mere equal treatment is insufficient when individuals are placed in unequal positions due to biological, social, or economic factors. Inaccessibility of MHM measures converts a biological reality into a structural exclusion, violating the right to participate in education on equal terms. [Paras 41- 65]
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to Dignity, Privacy, and Health — The right to life includes the right to a dignified existence and the right to menstrual health - Dignity is undermined when girl children are subjected to stigma or compelled to adopt unsafe practices due to a lack of facilities - Privacy is a concomitant of dignity, imposing a positive obligation on the State to facilitate a private space for menstrual management. [Paras 70 -80, 85 – 96]
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 — Sections 3 and 19 — Mandatory Norms and Standards — Held that "Free education" under Section 3 includes the removal of any financial or gender-specific barrier, such as the cost of sanitary napkins, that prevents a child from pursuing education - The provision of separate toilets and "barrier-free access" under Section 19 and the Schedule is a mandatory constitutional and statutory obligation that cannot be avoided by pleading a paucity of funds - Key Directions Issued by the Court: i. Toilets - Provision of functional, gender-segregated toilets with usable water and hand washing facilities in all schools; ii. Menstrual Absorbents - Free distribution of oxo biodegradable sanitary napkins and the establishment of "MHM Corners" with spare uniforms and innerwear; iii. Disposal - Installation of safe, hygienic, and environmentally compliant disposal mechanisms; iv. Awareness - Integration of gender-responsive curricula by NCERT/SCERT and sensitization of both male and female teachers; v. Monitoring - Periodic inspections by District Education Officers (DEO) including anonymous student feedback. [Relied on: Right to Education: Mohini Jain (Miss) v. State of Karnataka (1992) 3 SCC 666; Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P.(1993) 1 SCC 645; Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39; Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2023) 5 SCC 1; Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2025) 1 SCC 641; Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1; Rajiv Raturi v. Union of India (2024) 16 SCC 654; Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) 5 SCC 370; Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 1; State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty(2011) 3 SCC 436; Paras 159 – 172, 173-180]
Case Details: DR. JAYA THAKUR v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 1000/2022
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 94
Appearances: Advocate Varun Thakur (for petitioner) and ASG Aishwarya Bhati (Union)