Menstrual Health And Hygiene Are Fundamental Rights: A New Dimension Of Article 21

The Constitution of India is a noble document that seeks to promote equality, dignity, and harmony among the people, while also providing a framework for leading a meaningful and dignified life. Beyond being a legal charter, it reflects moral values that guide social conduct and shape the basic principles necessary for individual and collective development. Among its many provisions, Article 21, which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, occupies a central position. Over time, this article has been interpreted expansively and now encompasses a wide range of rights essential for living with dignity.

As society evolves and new challenges emerge, the constitutional courts have continuously interpreted the Constitution in light of changing social realities. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that the meaning of “life” under Article 21 is not confined to mere animal existence but includes the right to live with dignity, health, and self-respect. In this context, the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 1000 of 2022, marks a significant constitutional development. By recognising menstrual health and hygiene as an integral part of the right to life under Article 21, the Court acknowledged a reality that has long affected women and girls, particularly in silence and neglect. This recognition is also supported by the constitutional mandate under Article 15(3), which empowers the State to make special provisions for women. By bringing menstruation into constitutional discourse, the Supreme Court addressed a longstanding gap between formal legal guarantees and lived experiences. In 2023, the Court emphasised the responsibility of the State to ensure that menstrual health is treated not as a peripheral welfare issue but as a matter of fundamental rights. For decades, menstruation has remained a taboo subject within public institutions, especially schools. Although several government schemes and policies have aimed at improving sanitation and menstrual hygiene, their implementation has often been uneven. For many school-going girls, the onset of menstruation leads to irregular attendance. Inadequate toilet facilities, lack of privacy, unavailability of sanitary products, and fear of embarrassment compel many students to remain absent during their menstrual cycle. What begins as a temporary absence frequently develops into academic difficulty and, in several cases, results in complete discontinuation of education.

Government data indicates that substantial progress has been made in constructing separate toilets for girls in schools across the country. However, the mere presence of infrastructure does not guarantee usability. Toilets that are locked, poorly maintained, lack water supply, or have no disposal mechanisms fail to meet the needs of menstruating students. Under such conditions, attending school becomes a daily struggle rather than a guaranteed right. Various surveys and field studies reveal that a significant number of adolescent girls avoid school during menstruation. This avoidance is not driven solely by physical discomfort but by anxiety, social stigma, institutional neglect, and economic constraints that prevent access to menstrual products. Menstrual poverty thus operates invisibly, reinforcing inequality without being adequately reflected in official statistics. There have been several reported instances where girls have compromised their health or abandoned their education due to the absence of basic menstrual support.

It is against this background that the Supreme Court's decision acquires deep constitutional relevance. Article 21 has consistently been interpreted to include the right to health, dignity, and conditions that make life meaningful. When girls are forced to sacrifice their education or dignity due to biological realities, the harm is constitutional in nature. The judgment recognises that exclusion arising from menstruation cannot be dismissed as a private inconvenience or personal issue.

The decision also reinforces the principle of substantive equality. Educational institutions are often considered neutral spaces, but neutrality loses its meaning when structural differences are ignored. Failure to address menstrual needs places girls at a disadvantage that boys do not face. By acknowledging this imbalance, the Court reaffirmed that constitutional equality does not mean identical treatment but requires the removal of barriers that prevent equal participation.

Equally significant is the emphasis on State responsibility. Recognising menstrual health as a fundamental right imposes a constitutional obligation on the State. Access to sanitary products, functional toilets, clean water, privacy, and safe disposal facilities must form an essential part of the educational system. These are not discretionary welfare measures but constitutional requirements flowing directly from the right to live with dignity. The judgment also aligns with the constitutional values of privacy and bodily autonomy. Menstruation is an intensely personal experience, and the failure of public institutions to provide safe and private spaces exposes students to humiliation and distress. Respect for bodily integrity must extend beyond theory and be reflected in the design and maintenance of public facilities.

This recognition represents a shift towards a more inclusive and realistic constitutional approach. It acknowledges that the longstanding silence surrounding menstruation has imposed serious costs on young girls, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The decision also complements India's broader commitments to gender equality, health, and education by grounding constitutional ideals in everyday realities. At the same time, the true impact of the judgment will depend on its implementation. Constitutional recognition alone cannot transform classrooms or school infrastructure. Effective execution, continuous monitoring, and institutional accountability are essential to ensure that this right translates into tangible change. Without adequate resources, training, and oversight, the promise of the judgment may remain largely symbolic.

Nevertheless, by locating menstrual health within the scope of Article 21, the Supreme Court has delivered a clear and powerful message. Access to menstrual hygiene is not a matter of charity, convenience, or choice. It is a condition of dignity, equality, and meaningful education. For countless school-going girls across the country, this recognition has the potential to transform an everyday struggle into a protected constitutional right, ultimately strengthening not only individual lives but the nation as a whole.

The author is an Advocate at Rajasthan High Court. Views are personal