New Delhi: In a ruling that should reach the collective conscience of society, the Supreme Court Friday recognised menstrual hygiene management (MHM) not merely as a health issue but as an essential facet of the right to life under Article 21; and the right to education under Article 21A—two crucial fundamental rights that promise dignity.
The Supreme Court issued several binding directions today to ensure that the “barrier-free access” promised by the Constitution becomes a reality in schools.
All states and Union Territories must ensure every school has functional, gender-segregated toilets with usable water and hand-washing facilities. Schools must provide free oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins to girl students, accessible through vending machines or designated authorities.
Schools are directed to establish “Menstrual Hygiene Management Corners” equipped with spare uniforms, innerwear, and disposal bags for exigencies. Institutions must implement safe, environmentally compliant disposal mechanisms and incorporate gender-responsive curriculum to break the stigma surrounding puberty and menstruation.
Lastly, District Education Officers (DEOs) are mandated to conduct periodic inspections and obtain anonymous feedback from students to ensure menstrual hygiene compliance.
In a 127-page judgment, a bench of Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said: “We wish to communicate to every girl child, who might have become a victim of absenteeism because her body was perceived as a burden, that the fault is not hers.”
“This pronouncement is not just for the stakeholders of the legal system, it is also meant to be for the classroom where girls hesitate to ask for help, it is for the teachers who want to help but are restrained due to lack of resources, and it is for the parents who may not realise the impact of their silence, and for the society to establish that progress is measured how we protect the most vulnerable,” they added.
A precedent for dignity and education
In a judgment that sets a huge precedent going forward, the court emphasised: “A period should end a sentence, not a girl’s education.”
The petitioner, social worker Dr Jaya Thakur, identified that the problem is two-fold: First, absenteeism; and second, completely dropping out of school due to the lack of MHM measures. While the Union and various states argued that many policies already exist, the court noted, “Undoubtedly, there is no dearth of policies, schemes, programmes aimed at addressing the issue. However, what seems to be lacking is effective and consistent implementation.”
The four pillars of the court’s consideration included whether the lack of toilets and absorbents violates the Right to Equality (Article 14). Second, whether the right to dignified menstrual health is part of the Right to Life (Article 21). Third, whether these deficiencies violate the right of participation and equality of opportunity and fourth, whether they violate the Right to Education (Article 21A) and the RTE Act, 2009.
Menstrual health as facet of Article 21
The court ruled that the Right to Life under Article 21 encompasses a life with dignity, and dignity cannot be realised without privacy and bodily autonomy. The judgment establishes how menstrual hygiene management is not separable from dignity—reasoning how its absence subjects girl children to stigma, stereotyping, and avoidable suffering.
Under Article 14, the court noted that treating everyone the same is insufficient when historical and structural barriers—like the biological reality of menstruation—put one group at a disadvantage.
The court observed, “Undeniably, the way our society perceives women directly translates into prejudice against the girl child, and this perpetuates an endless cycle of discrimination”.
The judgment defines education as a “multiplier right” because it opens the door to all other human rights. By failing to provide MHM measures, schools effectively deny girl students the opportunity to compete and participate on equal terms with their male peers.
The Right to Education Act mandates “free” education, which includes removal of any financial or structural barrier that prevents a child from attending school. The judgment clarified that “barrier-free access” is not just about ramps for physical disabilities but about providing the “norms and standards” (including toilets and napkins) necessary for a girl student to remain in class.
Furthermore, it said, “The responsibility of the state is further heightened in the case of a child with disability, as the intersection of disability with gender compounds the disadvantage faced during menstruation. In case of children with disabilities, accessibility of washrooms is even more essential for inclusion and for enabling meaningful participation in school. Needless to say, the absence of such accessibility results in exclusion from education and reinforces the social and economic marginalisation.”
The court held that quality of education is violated when menstruating students are forced to choose between their education and their dignity.
Vital role of men & breaking the silence
In an interesting observation, the court, in a section of its judgment noted that infrastructure alone is only “half the problem” as far as menstrual hygiene is concerned. It emphasised the role of men and boys, stating that until the entire ecosystem—including male teachers and peers—is “sterilised of the stigma”, efforts will remain underutilised.
The court called for a “shared responsibility”, noting that ignorance breeds insensitivity while knowledge breeds empathy.
To ensure these directions do not remain “paper provisions”, the court has issued a continuing mandamus, meaning it will continue to monitor the Union and states’ compliance. The registry has been directed to forward the judgment to all high courts and relevant ministries.
Ultimately, the bench kept the matter as part-heard, asking the SC registry to notify this matter after three months, along with the compliance report filed by states and Union Territories before this particular bench.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Educators endorse Maharashtra’s co-ed schools push, but caution against ‘dropouts, distraction’