Supreme Court criticises States for poor implementation of directions on menstrual hygiene at schools

The Supreme Court recently expressed discontent with the inadequate implementation of its earlier directives to ensure the introduction of menstrual hygiene facilities in schools across the country [Dr Jaya Thakur v. Government of India and Others].

The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan found that several States and Union Territories (UTs) had treated the matter as an mere formality and submitted compliance reports without any application of mind.

“Having carefully gone through the reports by the States/UTs, we are constrained to say that we are discontent with the manner in which compliance is reported. The response by some States exhibit non-application of mind or rather mere formality. For instance, where the response shall be subjective, some States have indicated compliance through mere statistics or objective yes/no responses,” the Court said in an order passed on September 1.

Notably, in a judgment pronounced on January 30 this year, the Court had ruled that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to menstrual health.

The Court further directed the nationwide implementation of the Union government’s Menstrual Hygiene Policy for school-going girls and prescribed mandatory standards for government and private schools.

It had directed States and Union Territories to ensure that schools have functional gender-segregated toilets with running water, toilets accessible to children with disabilities, free sanitary napkins, menstrual hygiene management (MHM) corners, covered bins and safe waste-disposal systems.

The Court has, since then, been monitoring compliance with these directions.

On May 25, the Court sought fresh reports on the progress made in implementing its directions. In response, the Union government filed a consolidated affidavit on August 31.

After examining the affidavit, the Court acknowledged that some progress had been made but found that several claims of complete compliance were contradicted by the States’ own data.

Some States claimed complete compliance even though not all schools had accessible or gender-segregated toilets, handwashing facilities, sanitary-napkin vending machines or waste-disposal systems. The Court also noted that Punjab’s data was illegible.

The Court further found that several States said that they issued directions or circulars to comply with the directives, but did not show how the facilities actually reached students.

“It is one thing to say that policy exists, it is another thing that it is reaching the beneficiaries,” the Court observed.

To obtain a clearer picture of the conditions on the ground, the Court directed District Education Officers (DEOs) to constitute teams of teachers to conduct surprise inspections of all schools within their jurisdiction.

The Court said that the teams must examine whether schools have the required toilets and washing facilities, menstrual products, MHM corners, waste-disposal mechanisms and menstrual-health awareness measures.

It also directed the States and UTs to disclose the findings of inspections already conducted by DEOs, along with the anonymous feedback collected from students.

The Court further directed that future compliance reports should focus on the deficiencies that remain, rather than the progress already made.

“The responses shall now reflect the gaps instead of what has already been achieved,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court directed the States and UTs to identify the number of schools that still lack functional gender-segregated toilets with usable water connections, accessibility and privacy.

It also asked them to explain the reasons for these gaps and specify the time required to address them.

The Court separately sought information on the appointment of cleaners to maintain school toilets. It noted that some States had not appointed cleaners and had left schools to manage on their own, while others referred to unspecified internal arrangements or furnished no information.

The Court, therefore. asked the States and UTs to explain how they were ensuring that school toilets remained functional.

The Bench also modified an earlier direction requiring schools to provide oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins.

The change followed an application by the Indian Compostable Polymer Association, which informed the Court that such napkins could break down into microplastics and nanoplastics and worsen environmental pollution.

The Court directed schools to provide free biodegradable, biocompatible and compostable sanitary napkins instead. It made the State and Union Territory governments responsible for ensuring that these products are safe and effective.

The Court also asked governments to gradually promote environmentally sustainable menstrual products, including reusable or cloth-based sanitary napkins, menstrual cups and period underwear.

The matter will be heard next on September 29.

Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, with advocates Varun Thakur, Ramkaran, Deepak Goel, MK Ravi, Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Kavya Jhawar, Nandini Rai, Aashay Shukla, Vishakha Singh Chauhan, SP Singh and Shraddha Saran, appeared for Dr. Jaya Thakur, on whose plea the January 30 ruling was passed.

[Read Order]