Menstrual Pain Leave: Supreme Court declines to entertain PIL, says issue within policy domain

The Supreme Court on Friday disposed of a plea seeking menstrual pain leave for female students and working women across India while allowing petitioners to make a representation before the Central government [Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India]..A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that since there was a policy dimension in the case, the petitioner could file a representation before the Union Ministry of Women & Child Development."Having regard to the policy dimension in the case, the petitioner may approach the Women and Child Ministry to file a representation," the CJI said. .However, the Bench agreed with the submission of a caveator law student that if such leave is compelled, it would automatically operate as a disincentive to engage women as employees..The Supreme Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking menstrual pain leave for female students and working women across India.The plea stated that menstrual periods have been largely disregarded by society, the government and other stakeholders, but some organizations and state governments have taken notice.It specifically mentioned companies such as Ivipanan, Zomato, Byju's, Swiggy, Mathrubhumi, Magzter, Industry, ARC, FlyMyBiz, and Gozoop, which provide paid period leaves..The petitioner, therefore, urged the top court to direct state governments to establish regulations for menstrual pain leave. The petition also called for the effective implementation of Section 14 of the Maternity Benefit Act, which involves the appointment of inspectors to enforce the Act's provisions.The petition further said that according to online research, only Meghalaya had issued a notification in 2014 for the appointment of such officers and that Bihar was the only State in India that provided special menstrual pain leave as part of a 1992 policy.It was contended that denial of menstrual pain leave or period leave for women in the remaining states was a violation of their right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution..The petitioner also alleged a lack of legislative will to address the concept of menstrual pain leave and called for the Supreme Court's intervention, pointing out that various other countries were already providing menstrual pain leave in some form..[Read our live-coverage of the hearing below].[Read order]