The debate over menstrual leave in India has taken a new turn after the Supreme Court declined to consider a public interest litigation seeking a nationwide policy. The decision has triggered a wave of responses from lawyers, activists and academics, many of whom agree on the importance of addressing women’s health concerns but differ on how the issue should be handled.

On Friday, the apex court refused to entertain the petition, remarking that making menstrual leave mandatory across the country could have unintended consequences. Judges observed that such a requirement might discourage employers from hiring women and could reinforce gender stereotypes rather than promote equality.

The court indicated that the matter may be better handled by appropriate authorities through policy discussions rather than judicial direction.

The ruling has quickly drawn reactions from those who have long advocated for workplace policies that recognize the physical challenges some women face during menstruation.

Senior advocate Karuna Nundy said a limited provision could serve as a reasonable starting point. Speaking to PTI, she suggested that a single paid day of menstrual leave, available when needed, might help address genuine health concerns without imposing a rigid framework.

She noted that menstrual pain varies widely, ranging from mild discomfort to severe conditions such as endometriosis. According to Nundy, policies should reflect these differences while acknowledging that women experience menstrual cycles whether they are working or studying.

Some activists have strongly criticised the argument that menstrual leave could harm women’s employment prospects.

Yogita Bhayana described that concern as misguided, pointing out that women already manage biological realities such as pregnancy and childcare. In her view, the solution lies not in limiting workplace protections but in ensuring that employers do not discriminate against women.

Bhayana said many women struggle with severe pain during their menstrual cycle and may find it difficult to concentrate on work. Even when they attend the workplace, productivity can be significantly affected, she added.

She also argued that any discussion of menstrual leave should include students. Bhayana said that menstrual discomfort can make it difficult for girls to sit through classes or focus on their studies, suggesting that educational institutions should also consider voluntary leave options.

Others believe the issue falls primarily within the jurisdiction of state governments rather than the central judiciary.

Ranjana Kumari, an activist working on women’s rights, said state administrations could introduce policies or executive orders allowing women to take leave when menstrual pain becomes overwhelming. She stressed that such provisions should remain optional rather than mandatory.

According to Kumari, the aim should be to create a system where women who genuinely need rest during painful cycles can take leave without facing resistance from employers.

However, she also warned that policymakers must remain mindful of how such measures might affect hiring decisions. If employers perceive women as less available for work, she said, it could unintentionally reduce opportunities.

Advocate Sunita Sharma offered a different perspective, expressing support for the Supreme Court’s concerns. She argued that mandatory menstrual leave could send the wrong message about women’s abilities in professional environments.

Sharma suggested that menstrual discomfort is often managed privately and that many women prefer not to disclose such matters in the workplace. She also raised the possibility that a separate leave category might be misused.

In cases where menstrual pain leads to health issues, Sharma said existing sick leave provisions already provide an option for employees.

Legal scholar Seema Singh from the University of Delhi said the question of menstrual leave extends beyond health and workplace rights. In her view, the issue intersects with broader social attitudes, employment structures and cultural sensitivities.

Singh noted that legal mandates alone may not resolve the challenges. Without wider societal acceptance, she said, employers in the private sector could still hesitate to hire women if they believe productivity may be affected.

For Singh, public awareness and social sensitisation remain crucial steps before any sweeping legal framework is introduced.

While the Supreme Court declined to intervene directly, it indicated that competent authorities could examine the possibility of a policy after consulting relevant stakeholders.

For now, the discussion around menstrual leave continues to evolve across legal, social and workplace spheres. The court’s decision has not settled the debate. If anything, it has pushed the conversation further into the public domain, where questions about health, dignity and equality remain closely intertwined.