Supreme Court Appreciates SCBA For Raising Menstrual Dignity Matter, Issues Notice On Plea Against 'Period Checks' At Workplaces

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) plea seeking formulation of binding guidelines to ensure that the privacy, dignity, bodily autonomy and health of women are not violated when they are menstruating or facing related gynaecological issues at workplaces and educational institutions.

SCBA approached the Court after reports emerged that women sanitation workers at Maharshi Dayanand University in Haryana were allegedly subjected to degrading checks to verify whether they were menstruating.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan appreciated the SCBA for taking up this issue and remarked that if a worker on account of menstruation was unable to perform heavy tasks, another employee could have been assigned.

“If someone is saying that because of this reason heavy work could not be done, it could have been accepted and some other persons could have deployed. We hope something good will happen with this petition”, Justice Nagarathna remarked.

During the hearing, SCBA President Vikas Singh told the Court that similar instances had taken place in other States and said, “This can't be tolerated. Let them respond to this and I will suggest something… I am also trying to think of what could be guidelines adopted for the entire country.” He said, “This is a very serious issue and it is such a subject which nobody wants to talk about, unfortunately.”

Justice Nagarathna remarked, “This just shows the mindset of these people.” She referred to news reports that in Karnataka there is a proposal to give one day per month period leave to women. She remarked, “Now I was just thinking, will they ask to prove that you are on period to take the leave?”

The judge added, “We appreciate the Bar Association of the Supreme Court for taking up this matter. Hopefully something good comes out of this petition.” She also said that if someone stated that they could not do heavy work because of menstruation, it could have been accepted and another person could have been deployed.

Standing Counsel for the State of Haryana submitted that an inquiry had been initiated and said that action had been taken against two persons who were responsible for the incident and against the Assistant Registrar who was the administrative head.

He said that the two supervisors were appointed on a contractual basis through an agency and that the case had been referred to the agency for termination of their contractual agreement. He also stated that the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act had been invoked against the accused.

The Court issued notice to the Union of India and the State of Haryana and kept the matter next week for further consideration.

The petition relies on the written complaint filed by the three workers stating that they had been instructed to work faster despite being menstruating and unwell and asked to prove their condition. It states that the supervisors allegedly demanded photographic evidence by requiring the workers to send photographs of their sanitary pads and that the workers were verbally abused and pressured until they took photographs in the washroom.

The petition states that such conduct was not isolated and cites other institutional incidents. It refers to a report published in The Hindu documenting an incident in a private school in Maharashtra, where girls from classes 5 to 10 were assembled in the convention hall, shown projected images of blood stains in toilets and then taken to the toilets to check whether they were menstruating.

The SCBA has contended that these practices violate Article 21 of the Constitution. It states that women workers, particularly unorganised workers, are entitled to decent working conditions that recognise biological differences and do not involve humiliating checks during menstruation-related pain or discomfort.

The SCBA has prayed the Court to evolve guidelines on the lines of the Vishaka Guidelines, along with mandatory protocols, awareness programmes and institutional mechanisms to ensure respectful treatment of women employees and students during menstruation.

Case no. – W.P.(Crl.) No. 479/2025

Case Title – Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India