This is an unpopular opinion, especially among women who have spent years fighting for recognition of menstrual pain in workplaces. But as someone who has struggled with PCOS and debilitating periods for decades, I find myself agreeing with the Supreme Court of India’s observation that a blanket, mandatory menstrual leave policy could harm women in the workplace more than it helps.
That might sound contradictory. Menstrual pain can make it impossible to sit through meetings, concentrate on a screen, or simply get through the day without medicines and hot water bags. Cramps, fatigue and hormonal swings are overwhelming. Anyone who has experienced severe PCOS or PCOD knows that these are not “minor inconveniences”; they can be physically draining and emotionally destabilising. And a day off is most times much needed.
Yet, recognising that reality does not automatically mean that a nationwide rule mandating menstrual leave is the best solution.
Trickle-down politics
The Supreme Court’s concern is that compulsory menstrual leave could discourage employers from hiring women. It may sound cynical at first. In an ideal workplace, this should never be a factor. Companies should want progressive policies and empathetic management. Many organisations today already offer menstrual leave voluntarily, and in such spaces, the policy can function as intended—a gesture of support and understanding.
But India’s workplaces are not a uniform landscape of progressive HR departments and enlightened managers. Nor are all offices Gen Z-led startups in metro cities with ‘casual Fridays’. The Supreme Court is right to point out the “mindset of employers”, who, because of this policy, may deduce that “women are inferior.”
Policies do not operate only at the level of corporate brochures or official guidelines. They filter down through layers of management, through supervisors, team leaders and hiring managers whose biases often shape the everyday reality of employees. It is here—at the level where patriarchal assumptions still operate—that a blanket rule could become counterproductive.
A mandatory menstrual leave policy risks reinforcing a stereotype among misogynists that women are inherently less reliable employees. Even if senior leadership supports such policies, the calculation made by a hiring manager under pressure to meet deadlines could be brutally simple: why hire someone who is expected to take two or three days off every month when another candidate – a man – is perceived to be “available” all the time?
Then comes the assumption that women who don’t and have not needed menstrual leave may misuse this policy when available to all.
Don’t get me wrong: this is not a reflection of women’s capabilities. It reflects existing workplace prejudices, and I fear that such a policy, meant to show solidarity, may further alienate women.
Also read: Indian women’s football team’s Asian Cup exit doesn’t tell the story of their rise
Subtle biases
Those prejudices are not limited to men either. Women managers operating within the same competitive environments sometimes internalise the same assumptions: that menstrual leave could be misused, that it might affect productivity, that this is not equality.
Then there are the so-called performative, progressive bosses who say they are allies but would hire men instead. The reason? They want to make the lives of their existing female colleagues “easier.” These perceptions may be unfair, but they are real. Pretending they do not exist will not make them disappear.
That is why a blanket legal mandate could inadvertently become a convenient excuse for discrimination. Employers might not openly say that they prefer men. But subtle biases during hiring, promotions, and work distribution could push women out of opportunities subconsciously.
For a country already struggling with low female workforce participation, that is not a risk to ignore.
That doesn’t mean workplaces should ignore that for many women, periods can be medically and physically challenging. The solution, however, may lie in flexibility rather than rigid mandates.
Companies should expand sick leave provisions, add some extra days, or allow employees to use existing leave structures for menstrual health without stigma. Some organisations could choose to offer menstrual leave voluntarily, depending on the nature of work. Others might provide flexible work arrangements or remote work options during difficult days.
The approach should be adaptable, designed by organisations that understand their workforce and operational realities.
For women like me who need rest during painful periods, the ability to take a sick day without an explanation can be just as meaningful as a formally labelled “menstrual leave.”
Feminist gains have always been about expanding opportunities for women, not inadvertently narrowing them. A well-intended policy that ends up reinforcing old prejudices could set that progress back.
(Edited by Saptak Datta)