Beyond Biology: Why Menstrual Leave Is A Workplace Justice Issue- Not A Stigma Problem

The debate over menstrual leave in India operates within a false binary. Proponents celebrate it as progressive; opponents condemn it as regressive. This dichotomy misses the fundamental truth: menstrual leave is neither about biology nor about weakness. It is about institutional accountability for employee health.

When approximately 50% of the workforce experiences a cyclical health condition that significantly impacts productivity and well being, ignoring it is not neutrality—it is negligence dressed as equality. The real question isn't whether menstrual leave is regressive; it's why India has criminalized discomfort at work while celebrating presenteeism as virtue.

Across Bihar (since 1992), Kerala, Karnataka, Odisha, and Sikkim, policymakers have recognized this reality. Yet India remains fragmented, without a unified national framework. What is more concerning is that the legitimate criticism about "all women taking leave simultaneously", a genuine operational concern, has never been seriously addressed with structural solutions. This gap reveals why the menstrual leave discourse remains incomplete and why its implementation continues to falter.

This article contends that menstrual leave, when designed with both worker autonomy and institutional foresight, represents a crucial step toward dignified work environments. The simultaneous-leave problem, rather than invalidating the policy, should prompt sophisticated solutions that already exist in modern workplaces.

The Unspoken Crisis: Presenteeism and Workplace Pathology

The real inefficiency lies not in absence, but in presence.

Consider this: An employee experiencing severe dysmenorrhea (medical menstrual pain affecting 50-90% of menstruating people) is sitting at her desk, unable to focus, moving through spreadsheets in a fog of pain, navigating to bathroom repeatedly, and suppressing visible discomfort to avoid drawing attention.

Workplace research calls this "presenteeism" and its productivity cost exceeds absenteeism threefold. Yet we celebrate it. We call it "dedication." We promote people who work through pain.

In contrast, an employee who takes a menstrual leave day to rest, apply heat therapy, take medication, and recover returns refreshed and functional. The efficiency loss is one day; the gain is restored capacity.

India's labor landscape has normalized suffering. The Occupational Safety, Health and Environment Code, 2020, mandates "just and humane conditions of work" under Article 42 of the Constitution. Menstrual leave isn't a special concession, it's the baseline fulfillment of this mandate. Employers have already normalized sick leave, medical leave, and stress leave. Menstrual leave is conceptually identical, a health condition requiring temporary absence.

The stigma isn't in the policy. The stigma is in pretending menstruation doesn't exist while women exhaust themselves proving they're "just like men."

The Simultaneous-Leave Problem: A False Obstacle, Not a Fatal Flaw

The most persistent criticism deserves serious engagement: "If all women take menstrual leave simultaneously, won't operations collapse?"

This objection reveals a crucial misunderstanding. It assumes:

1. All menstruating employees menstruate simultaneously (false)
2. All experiences severity equally (false)
3. The policy mandates leave, not permits it (false)

The Biology: Menstrual cycles vary between 21-35 days among the general population. Even within a single organization, the probability that all menstruating employees are in their symptomatic phase on the same day approaches statistical impossibility. For a 100-person company with 45 menstruating employees across different cycle phases, simultaneous leave is virtually non-existent.

The Psychology: Menstrual leave should be elective, not mandatory. An employee with minimal symptoms works normally. An employee with severe pain uses the benefit. The policy respects individual agency and actual need.

The Existing Solution: Staggered Leave Architecture

However, there is a proven institutional response to the simultaneous-leave concern. It already exists in industries managing far greater complexity. Consider:

Airlines manage pilot absenteeism (medical, family emergencies, fatigue) through sophisticated scheduling that builds redundancy into crew rosters. Hospitals coordinate leave among surgeons and nursing staff during peak patient volumes through rotating schedules. IT companies manage sprint cycles with distributed teams across multiple time zones and work preferences.

These industries employ a four-layer solution model adaptable to menstrual leave:

Layer 1: Rolling Calendar Quotas

Organizations should implement monthly rolling quotas, not daily allocations. Rather than permitting unlimited leaves, establish clear guidelines: "Each team member may take up to 1-2 menstrual leave days per month, distributed within that month."

This removes the "everyone takes leave on the same day" problem entirely. It also prevents hoarding behavior and protects policy integrity.

Layer 2: Department-Level Scheduling (Soft Coordination)

Teams maintain a simple shared calendar where employees voluntarily indicate their anticipated menstrual leave timing. This isn't surveillance, it's coordination. Many companies already use this for vacation planning.

The key distinction: No approval needed. No medical verification required. Pure visibility for operational planning.

A marketing team with 10 people won't all be menstruating severely on Tuesday. Through loose coordination, operations planners can identify when 2-3 people might need leave and adjust deadlines or redistribute workload accordingly.

Layer 3: Cross-Functional Coverage

Rather than expecting one team to absorb all absences, organizations should build cross-functional task fluidity. This requires culture shift: positions shouldn't be "one-person shops."

When employee A from marketing is absent on menstrual leave, employee B from communications (trained on baseline tasks) provides backup. This isn't creating inefficiency; it's eliminating brittle organizational design that suffers any absence.

Layer 4: Technology-Enabled Discretion

Modern HR systems can automate this. Employees submit menstrual leave requests through mobile apps (ensuring privacy), triggering automated processes:

• Day is logged against their monthly quota
• Calendar shows absence to relevant team
• Manager receives notification (without explicit medical reason)
• Absence triggers pre-set contingency coverage (if needed)

This removes admin burden and decision-making friction.

Real-World Evidence

Karnataka's October 2025 Menstrual Leave Policy implementing 12 paid menstrual leave days annually across all sectors offers the perfect test case. Real data will soon demonstrate what theory predicts: operational impact is minimal.

Companies like Google, Microsoft, and some Indian corporations (Infosys, TCS) already offer flexible health-based leave policies without the simultaneous-leave apocalypse occurring. The absence of this catastrophe in organizations of 50,000+ employees contradicts the theoretical objection.

Beyond Leave: The Structural Justice Argument

Menstrual leave isn't the end point; it's the admission of failure that requires a starting point.

Consider: Why do we need menstrual leave? Because workplaces are structurally hostile to menstruating bodies. The default environment assumes an unclocked human: no periods, no pain, no bathroom frequency variation, no relationship to their body's reality.

True workplace equity would eliminate the need for menstrual leave through:

1. Workspace Design: Rest areas with heating facilities, accessible restrooms, and dignity.
2. Leave Architecture: Generous sick leave (or unlimited PTO) eliminating the need to label discomfort.
3. Culture Shift: Normalizing that humans have bodies with cyclical health needs.
4. Flexible Work: Remote work, staggered hours, and break autonomy.

Menstrual leave is the interim measure—the acknowledgment that we haven't built these equitable structures yet.

This is why Bihar's 1992 policy and Karnataka's 2025 policy matter. They represent institutional admission: We recognize that our workplace is not designed for all bodies. We will accommodate while we work toward true equity.

The Critical Feminist Perspective: Autonomy, Not Charity

Here is where the policy requires unwavering scrutiny: Menstrual leave must enhance autonomy, not manufacture infantilization.

The 2020 Bhuj incident—where authorities forced 66 girls to strip to verify menstruation—represents menstrual surveillance, not menstrual leave policy. Any implementation requiring medical certificates, manager approval, or period-tracking documentation transforms a health accommodation into patriarchal surveillance.

The only acceptable implementation is self-certified, no-question-asked leave.[2]

This is non-negotiable. An employee states, "I'm taking menstrual leave today." No verification. No elaboration. No questions. Similar to how sick leave functions.

The counterargument—"People will abuse it"—reveals the real problem. If institutional culture assumes women will "abuse" leave for menstruation, the problem isn't the policy; it's the culture's misogyny. Trust is not optional. Autonomy is non-negotiable.

Furthermore, the policy must be genuinely elective. An employee shouldn't face peer pressure or manager judgment for using or not using the benefit. An employee with light symptoms works. An employee with severe dysmenorrhea takes leave. Both choices are valid. Both are protected.

The Intersectional Reality: Who Actually Accesses Menstrual Leave?

Here's what most policy discussions omit: Menstrual leave benefits will likely be accessed by privileged workers, not those who need it most.

India's informal sector—comprising 88% of the workforce—has no leave framework at all. A garment factory worker earning ₹300 per day cannot "afford" to take leave, menstrual or otherwise. A domestic worker has no leave policy, no HR system, no protection.

Even in formal sectors, workers in precarious positions (contract employees, gig workers, temporary staff) face implicit pressure not to use available benefits for fear of non-renewal.

Menstrual leave policy without addressing the informal sector is elite feminism. It serves software engineers in Bangalore far more than it serves agricultural workers in Bihar.

A complete policy requires:

1. Extending coverage to informal sector workers
   through government mandates and employer accountability
2. Removing cost burden (employers, not employees, absorb lost productivity)
3. Protecting job security through explicit anti-discrimination clauses

Without this, menstrual leave becomes another workplace benefit marking class divisions.

Why Implementation Matters More Than Debate

India's fragmented approach, different policies across Bihar, Kerala, Karnataka, Sikkim, and Odisha, creates confusion. Meanwhile, the central government hasn't enacted unified legislation despite parliamentary attempts in 2017.

This fragmentation serves no one. A woman working for a multinational in Bangalore accesses menstrual leave. Her counterpart at the same company in a non-implementing state doesn't. A female lawyer in a Delhi firm has no policy. A female lawyer in Bangalore does.

National-level legislation is overdue. The template exists:

1. Scope: All sectors, organized and informal
2. Entitlement: 1-2 days per month or annual quota (12 days)
3. Structure: Self-certified, no medical verification, fully paid
4. Protection: Explicit anti-discrimination clauses; cannot impact hiring, promotion, or termination decisions
5. Flexibility: Employees may combine with remote work or flexible hours instead
6. Privacy: Digital systems ensuring confidentiality; no manager disclosure of reasons

Karnataka's 2025 notification provides the blueprint. Delhi, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra must follow. The central Parliament must enact the Gender-Sensitive Workplace Bill, 2025 (or equivalent).

A Personal Case for Implementation

The case for menstrual leave isn't primarily medical. It's moral.

A person experiencing pain shouldn't have to perform normalcy. A person experiencing discomfort shouldn't have to produce evidence of suffering to justify temporary withdrawal from public performance. A person shouldn't have to hide that their body is operating on a cycle different from the default human assumed by institutional design.

If an employer can grant paid leave for Diwali celebrations, can provide wellness days for mental health, can permit absences for family emergencies—then offering paid leave during a predictable, cyclical health event is not radical. It's basic institutional respect.

The efficiency argument cuts both ways. Yes, an employee on menstrual leave is absent from her desk. But an employee working through dysmenorrhea is cognitively absent—producing lower-quality work, burning out faster, and creating hidden costs through health deterioration.

An institution that can't accommodate 1-2 days per month is an institution that doesn't deserve the labor of people who menstruate.

This isn't victimhood framing. This is recognizing that coercive presence isn't productivity. Forcing people to work through pain doesn't create stronger organizations; it creates burned-out employees and cultures of performative suffering.

Menstrual leave reframes the narrative: Your body's needs are legitimate. Your discomfort is valid. Your absence is not negligence; your self-care is non-negotiable.

That's not a policy. That's an ethos.

The Path Forward

India stands at an inflection point. Karnataka's October 2025 policy signals momentum. The question isn't whether menstrual leave is "progressive" or "regressive"—a false binary rooted in 1970s feminism. The question is whether India's workplaces will finally acknowledge that equality doesn't mean identical treatment; it means treating different needs differently.

Menstrual leave, implemented thoughtfully with:

• Self-certification and autonomy
• Sophisticated workforce scheduling (not catastrophic simultaneous absence)
• Complementary structural changes (flexible work, wellness infrastructure)
• Explicit anti-discrimination protections
• Extension to informal sector workers

The simultaneous-leave problem is solved. The privacy concerns are addressable. The cultural stigma shifts only through normalized policy and workplace education, not through silence.

What remains is political will. India's lawmakers must decide: Will menstrual leave remain fragmented across states, or will a unified national framework finally acknowledge that dignified work is work that doesn't require suffering in silence?

The evidence from Bihar (33 years), Kerala (2 years), Karnataka (2 months), and Sikkim suggests the answer: When given permission to attend to their bodies, employees don't collapse the institution. They work better.

It's time for India to stop making women choose between their bodies and their careers. Menstrual leave isn't a luxury. It's recognition that workplace justice includes bodily autonomy.

Author is Law Student at Symbiosis Law School Pune

Views Are Personal