Overview
- Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to entertain the PIL on March 13, saying a statutory mandate could unintentionally reinforce stereotypes and hurt women’s job prospects.
- The bench disposed of the case but directed competent authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation and explore policy options after stakeholder consultations.
- The court questioned the petitioner’s bona fides and locus, noting this was his third plea after earlier 2023 and 2024 orders to approach the Union ministry for a policy review.
- The judges stressed that voluntary menstrual‑leave measures are welcome, pointing to varied state and employer practices, including Karnataka’s 2025 policy that extends to the private sector and is under judicial challenge.
- A January 2026 Supreme Court ruling recognized menstrual health under Article 21, and reactions to Friday’s order showed divided views among lawyers and activists over voluntary options versus statutory protection.