State, Bengaluru women lawyers defend menstrual leave policy before Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka government has told the Karnataka High Court that its recent policy mandating the grant of paid menstrual leave to working women in various establishments has scientific and objective basis [Karnataka Employers Association v Government of Karnataka].

The State made the submissions earlier this week before a Bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, in response to petitions challenging the paid menstrual leave policy.

Representing the State, Advocate General (AG) Shashi Kiran Shetty contended that the long-term health of women workers must be prioritised over the financial burdens cited by employers opposing the new menstrual leave policy.

The AG added that industries covered by the new policy often discourage women from availing menstrual leave. He added that women who availed of the leave typically would lose their wages for the day.

In December 2025, the Karnataka government notified a Menstrual Leave Policy, which mandated the grant of one paid leave per month to all women employees in the age group of 18-52 in working in establishments mentioned in policy.

The policy covers establishments governed by laws such as 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.

The policy was subsequently challenged by the Karnataka Employers Association, the Bangalore Hotels Association, the managements of SASMOS HET Technologies, Avirata Defence Systems Limited, Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems Limited and Fesil Aerospace Technologies Limited, among others.

The petitioners have raised concerns about the financial burden that would accompany the mandatory grant of paid menstrual leave. The have also questioned whether such a policy can be introduced through an executive notification. Some have contended that the new policy is discriminatory.

Hearings in the matter took place earlier this week, from March 24 to March 26, and are scheduled to continue next week.

Notably, several associations have now filed applications supporting the policy and challenging the petitions that have opposed it.

The Bengaluru Women Lawyers Association is among those who defended the grant of menstrual leave. Representing the association, Senior Advocate Prof Ravivarma Kumar on March 24 highlighted that cramps, nausea, emotional stress and hormonal imbalance as a few symptoms women go through during menstruation.

He maintained that the grant of menstrual leave to women, therefore, was no discriminatory. He explained that women in the reproductive age group of 18 to 52 form a valid class for differential treatment. The recurring physical symptoms they experience during menstruation every month is unique to women workers and acts like a physical handicap that men do not experience, it was argued.

The promise of social justice for India's citizens in the Preamble to the Constitution of India also justifies the introduction of the menstrual leave policy, Prof Kumar said. Depriving women workers of paid menstrual leave would amount to depriving them of livelihood, he added.

In the ensuing hearing on March 25, the All India Progressive Women's Association too joined in defending the need to recognise menstrual leave.

The association compared menstrual leave and childcare leave granted after childbirth. Such leave is given to retain womens' participation in the workforce, the association's counsel pointed out.

She also highlighted that menstruation is integral for reproduction, making it is important for women take care of their health during their menstrual cycle so that they may exercise their reproductive choice freely. A paid menstrual leave policy would enable this, she argued.

She further addressed arguments that women can now use painkillers to help with menstrual pain, instead of being extended paid leave. She pointed out that the prolonged usage of such painkillers could degrade health and foster antibiotic resistance.

She added that menstrual leave would ultimately benefit the employers and increase the efficiency of women in the workforce.

Advocate Maitreyi Krishnan, representing the All India Central Council of Trade Unions, argued that equality between men and women must be understood in the context of social realities.

She noted women's participation in India's workforce stands at 35.3 per cent in comparison to the international average of 47 per cent.

Justice Hegde observed that there appeared to be an equal ratio of men to women lawyers in his court hall. Krishnan, however, responded that this may be true only in Justice Hegde's court hall. Citing a survey of various Bar Councils, she said women made up only 15 per cent of the total advocates.

"When we are looking at understanding equality and bringing forward the Constitutional dream of equality in its very real sense, these are aspects we need to consider," she added.

She went on to argue that the low participation of women in the workforce is also tied to the lack of menstrual leave policies. Krishnan noted that dysmenorrhea (painful menstrual cramps) is often underdiagnosed, undertreated, and disregarded. 42 million Indian women are reported to suffer from endometriosis, a chronic gynaecological condition, she added.

She further highlighted that scientific research has historically not studied women's bodies due to the constant state of flux caused by menstruation as compared to the disproportionately vast research done on mens' health.

She maintained that because women have faced systemic and structural discrimination, and systemic and structural changes like the menstrual leave policies are essential to ensure equality.

The matter is listed for further hearing on April 1.

Meanwhile, fifteen women from various professions, including two in-house counsel, recently filed a writ petition to quash the menstrual policy notification. They have raised concerns that in a competitive job market, employers will be reluctant to hire women if such a policy is made compulsory.

On a related note, the Supreme Court recently refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking paid menstrual leave for women. The top court reasoned that it could not take up matters that lie in the legislature's domain. During the hearing, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant also warned that compulsory menstrual leave could have an adverse effect on womens' careers.

The petitioners challenging the menstrual leave policy before the Karnataka High Court were represented by Advocates BC Prabhakar and Prashanth BK.