The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday said that a detailed hearing is needed before passing any orders on challenge to the State's November 20 order entitling women employees in various establishments to one menstrual leave every month.
Therefore, Justice Jyoti M adjourned the case till January 20, 2026. No directions were given for the stay of the policy.
The new menstrual leave policy applies to all industries and establishments in the State which are registered under the Factories Act, 1948, the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961, the Plantation Labour Act, 1951, the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 and the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961.
It has been challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association and the managements of SASMOS HET Technologies, Avirata Defence Systems Limited, Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems Limited and Fesil Aerospace Technologies Limited.
Yesterday, the Court initially granted Bangalore Hotels Association interim relief after hearing preliminary submissions made by their counsel, thereby staying the menstrual leave policy order.
However, hours later, the Court recalled its stay order after the State's Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty appeared before the lunch break and requested the Court to reconsider its interim stay order. The Court had then agreed to hear the matter further today.
When the matter was heard today, AG Shetty argued that the new policy is a progressive measure that was introduced after proper consideration and that there was a constitutional basis for such a policy, to ensure humane conditions at work.
"Throughout India, ours is a very progressive legislature, for the benefit of women (this was introduced). Throughout the world, (such policies exist). Karnataka is progressive, the first State to come out with such a policy in India.. Everybody was heard, 72 objections came," he said.
Representing various petitioners, advocate Prashanth BK replied that what is being challenged by the petitioners is not the State's law-making powers on this issue, but the State's decision to simply issue an executive fiat instead of amending the law.
"The manner in which this has been imposed, we are challenging. We have different statutes in place. They can amend it, legislative process they can do. But by executive order, whether they can travel beyond the statute?" he asked.
Justice Jyoti suggested that the matter could be heard after the upcoming winter vacations, adding that the petitioners could go through the State's statement of objections in the matter during this time and file their response, if any. The matter could be heard in January, she added.
Advocate Prashanth urged the Court to request the State not to precipitate the matter till then. AG Shetty said the State intended to implement the policy in full.
The Court, however, replied that these are matters that should not be decided hastily.
"Nothing will happen. It requires detailed consideration. It's a matter of public importance (not something to decide on first impression). We will fix one date," Justice Jyoti said, before listing the case for hearing on January 20.
In a statement of objections filed before the Court, the State meanwhile has defended its new menstrual leave policy as advancing the right to equality.
"The Constitution bestows an obligation on the state to safeguard women from discrimination because of the natural biological process of menstruation," the State highlighted.
It added that the new policy would foster an environment where biological differences between men and women do not translate into professional disadvantages for women employees.
"The impugned order helps women during the menstrual cycle to take rest and get back to work without having serious challenges and without inconveniencing their male colleagues/supervisors/superiors. It is a beneficial legislation to help menstruating women to maintain a consistent level of productivity in an otherwise fast-paced work environment," the statement read.
It has also argued that there is no need for the State to introduce a legal amendment to bring out the paid menstrual leave policy, adding that the existing laws already permit the grant of such additional benefits to working persons.
Among other arguments, the State added that the petitioners' concerns that the new policy would result in significant financial liability cannot be sustained either.
"The health and safety of the employees is of far more paramount in the eyes of the State," the statement said.