Will menstrual hygiene judgment remain on paper? Supreme Court seeks implementation details

The Supreme Court on Thursday warned of contempt of court action against States and Union Territories (UT) found failing to report on how the Court's directives to ensure menstrual health are being implemented.

The Court warned that it will issue contempt notices to Chief Secretaries of States if they fail to respond to the Central government's requests for information on the steps taken to implement the menstrual hygiene judgment.

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan questioned why States and Union Territories (UTs) had not furnished the information sought by the Union government and granted one last opportunity to comply.

“On the next date of hearing, if we hear from the Union that some of the States/UTs have not responded, we shall proceed further to issue notice of contempt to the concerned Chief Secretary of the State(s),” the Court said.

The Bench said it was sure that the Union, States and UTs had recognised the importance of its judgment declaring menstrual hygiene a fundamental right.

“In other words, we have declared menstrual hygiene/ menstrual health as one of the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution,” said the Court.

However, the Bench questioned how that right would be implemented if its judgment remained only on paper.

“If what we have said in the judgment is only going to remain on paper, how is the Union, States/UTs going to give effect to this fundamental right? Whatever we have done, we have done in the interest of young girls who are giving up education, more particularly in remote parts of the country because of the problem of menstrual hygiene, etc," the Bench observed.

The Court was examining compliance with its January 30 judgment, which recognised menstrual health as part of the right to life under Article 21.

The Court had 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.

Later, on September 1, the Court directed States and UTs to address the deficiencies it had identified and report on steps to address them.

During yesterday's hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati submitted that the Union government had taken up the issue seriously with all States and UTs, seeking details of how the judgment was being implemented.

However, Bhati pointed out that States and UTs had not responded so far.

“We fail to understand that once the Union calls for the necessary information, why the States/UTs do not respond,” the Court said, in response.

The Court proceeded to direct the Centre to seek written information from every State and UT on the implementation of the judgment, paying particular attention to certain directions in a September 1 order passed in this case.

In that order, the Court had called for a gradual shift towards environmentally friendly menstrual products. It criticised States for giving statistics or "yes/no" answers to queries on the implementation of the menstrual hygience judgment, instead of explaining the position on the ground. The Court, at the time, also asked the States to specify which facilities were still lacking, why and how long it would take to provide them.

To obtain this information, the Court said the Union could prepare a questionnaire and seek replies from each State and UT.

The matter will be heard next on December 14.

[Read Order]