Liberty To Bleed: Menstrual Leave Policy

The Government of Karnataka has recently issued a Government Order (G.O.) granting 12 days of menstrual leave per year to working women. The operative portion of the G.O. states that women employees aged 18 to 52 working in factories, shops and commercial establishments, plantations, beedi units, and motor transport undertakings are entitled to one paid leave day per month on account of menstruation. Bihar was the first state, introducing a long-standing policy in 1992 that grants two days of special leave per month exclusively to female government staff. In contrast, Kerala's 2023 initiative focuses primarily on female students, announcing menstrual leave policies for those in state universities and educational institutions. More recently, Odisha in 2024 and Karnataka in 2025 have adopted broader approaches that extend benefits to working women. Odisha's 2024 policy has a wider scope, covering both Government and Private sectors and mandating employer obligations for registered entities. Similarly, Karnataka's recent Government Order (G.O.), set for implementation in 2025, grants 12 days of paid menstrual leave per year to women employees aged 18 to 52 working in specific registered establishments like factories and commercial shops, though this focuses on registered private enterprises. The policy has been restricted to registered factories and establishments, leaving women in the informal sector unattended. These notifications have sparked wide debate—legally, socially, and practically.

The key concerns relate to whether Government Orders can call upon private employers to grant such leave, and whether these G.O. are legally enforceable or mandatory for employers. The broader issue emerging from these concerns is that a policy without a law lacks clarity on whether it has the force of law. There is no statute that provides for menstrual leave. There is no Central or State law providing for paid menstrual leave under any legislation, creating uncertainty as to whether a government order can create mandatory employer obligations without a well-laid statutory enactment.

Other countries like Indonesia, Japan, and Italy have framed policies for menstrual leave. In Canada, there is no law mandating menstrual leave, though some employers may offer it as part of their perks. Likewise, even in India, some companies do not wait to be compelled by law but, as a benevolent gesture, offer menstrual leave to women employees.

In India, there is currently no law governing menstrual leave. Legislative attempts so far include The Right to Menstrual Hygiene and Paid Leave Bill, 2019 (a Private Member Bill), which proposed menstrual leave and access to menstrual products but was never legislated. The Supreme Court in Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 228 considered a petition seeking a nationwide menstrual leave policy. The Court declined to issue directions, noting the complex policy implications, and directed the petitioner to make a representation to the Ministry of Women & Child Development.

A Government Order issued without enactment of a legislative law therefore has its validity in question. If an employer does not comply, the absence of clear statutory backing leaves uncertainty regarding consequences such as penalty or prosecution.

The Management of Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems Limited (WP 37122/2025) and Bangalore Hotels Association (WP 36659/2025) has filed two separate writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Karnataka's recent Government Order (G.O.) dated 20th November, 2025. The Karnataka High Court though initially granted an interim stay on 9th December, 2025, it later recalled the stay order at the request of the Government and would be heard in the Month of January,2026.

From a practical lens, menstrual leave also raises important social and workplace considerations. Women may or may not feel comfortable availing it, as menstrual discomfort is openly discussed by younger employees but still carries cultural inhibitions for many. Menstruation continues to be a deeply rooted taboo in many workplaces, and a policy requiring women to explicitly state menstrual reasons may itself feel like a privacy intrusion. Concerns about awkwardness and stigma persist, with women worried about being labelled as “less reliable,” their productivity being questioned, or male colleagues resenting perceived additional burdens. What is intended as empowerment could unintentionally reinforce workplace stereotypes.

There is also a risk of discrimination in hiring. With existing obligations on employers such as maternity benefits and creche facilities, employers—especially small establishments—may view menstrual leave as an added burden. This could inadvertently discourage the hiring of women, particularly where cost and continuity pressures are high. This has been the experience when maternity leave was increased to 26 weeks.

Government Orders introducing these leaves are undeniably well-intentioned. They recognize a biological reality long ignored by labour laws and workplace policies. But menstrual equity cannot be achieved by symbolism alone. Its legal enforceability is questionable without statutory enactment after eliciting the views of the public and organizations. More importantly, the policy raises genuine on-ground concerns regarding privacy, stigma, workplace dynamics, and hiring discrimination. The conversation around menstrual equity must continue, but any policy must be legally anchored, socially sensitive, practically enforceable, and mindful of unintended consequences. Until then, “liberty to bleed” may remain more aspirational than real.

Author is an Advocate, Madras High Court

Views Are Personal.