Supreme Court Bar Association Moves Apex Court Over ‘Proof of Periods’ Incident in Haryana: A Question of Dignity and Rights

Background of the Case

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has approached the Supreme Court of India, seeking judicial intervention and an independent probe into a disturbing incident at Maharishi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak, where female sanitation workers were allegedly asked to prove that they were menstruating.

The petition, filed by the Bar body, calls for strict guidelines to protect women’s right to health, dignity, bodily autonomy, and privacy, especially during menstruation. The plea demands that both the Centre and the Haryana government conduct a detailed inquiry into the matter to ensure accountability and institutional responsibility.


The Incident at Maharishi Dayanand University

According to reports, the incident occurred on October 26, just hours before Haryana Governor Ashim Kumar Ghosh was scheduled to visit the MDU campus.
Three female sanitation workers employed through Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Limited alleged that their supervisors forced them to work despite informing them that they were unwell due to menstruation. When they slowed down their work pace, the supervisors allegedly demanded photographic proof to confirm that they were menstruating.

One of the workers, employed with the university for 11 years, stated:

“When we refused to click pictures, we were abused and threatened with dismissal.”

The women further claimed that the supervisors acted under the instructions of Assistant Registrar Shyam Sunder, who has denied any involvement.


University and Police Action

Following the complaints, MDU issued a statement confirming that two supervisors were suspended pending an internal inquiry. The university administration also announced the constitution of an internal committee to probe the allegations.

Simultaneously, the PGIMS police station registered an FIR against three individuals under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:

  • Section 354A – Sexual harassment

  • Section 509 – Intent to insult the modesty of a woman

  • Section 506 – Criminal intimidation

  • Section 354 – Assault or use of criminal force on a woman

The police also indicated that the accused may face charges under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as one or more of the complainants belonged to Scheduled Caste communities.


Legal and Constitutional Framework

1. Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of India

  • Article 14 (Right to Equality): Every individual, irrespective of gender, is entitled to equal treatment under the law. The alleged demand for proof of menstruation constitutes blatant gender discrimination.

  • Article 15(1): Prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex. Subjecting female workers to degrading treatment because of their biological condition is a direct violation.

  • Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity): The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted this to include the right to live with dignity, bodily integrity, and privacy. Forcing women to “prove” menstruation directly infringes upon these constitutional guarantees.

  • Article 23: Prohibits exploitation and forced labour, which becomes relevant when workers are coerced to perform duties despite illness or menstruation.


Relevant Statutes

a) The Indian Penal Code, 1860

The FIR under Sections 354, 354A, 506, and 509 IPC directly addresses sexual harassment, intimidation, and assault against women. These provisions criminalize acts intended to insult the modesty or dignity of women, including verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature.

b) The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act)

This Act mandates every workplace, including universities, to establish an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to address grievances of sexual harassment.
The incident at MDU constitutes workplace harassment under Section 3(2) of the POSH Act, as it subjects female employees to humiliation based on gender and biological conditions.

c) The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

If the victims belong to Scheduled Castes or Tribes, the accused may be prosecuted under this Act, which criminalizes acts that insult or humiliate members of SC/ST communities, especially women, in public or professional settings.


Judicial Precedents

  1. Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241
    The Supreme Court established that gender equality and workplace dignity are part of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. It also laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at workplaces, which later evolved into the POSH Act, 2013.

  2. Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1
    The Court recognized bodily autonomy and reproductive choice as integral to personal liberty under Article 21, reaffirming that no person can be compelled to reveal or prove private physiological conditions.

  3. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
    The right to privacy was declared a fundamental right. The act of demanding proof of menstruation clearly violates informational and decisional privacy.

  4. Nandita Haksar v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (2021)
    The Court emphasized that human dignity and freedom from arbitrary treatment are constitutional imperatives binding on all state and non-state actors.


Social and Legal Implications

The MDU incident underscores the deep-rooted stigma and insensitivity surrounding menstruation in workplaces, particularly affecting women in low-paying and manual jobs. It reveals the urgent need for menstrual dignity policies and gender-sensitivity training in educational and government institutions.

Moreover, the intervention by the Supreme Court Bar Association signals the legal fraternity’s growing role in safeguarding women’s rights beyond the courtroom — especially in enforcing accountability through judicial oversight.


Conclusion

The “proof of periods” incident is not just an isolated case of workplace misconduct — it is a constitutional violation that challenges the essence of women’s dignity and equality.
The Supreme Court’s intervention in this matter is crucial to:

  • Reinforce the sanctity of bodily autonomy and privacy,

  • Ensure accountability within public institutions, and

  • Set national standards for menstrual equity and workplace dignity.

If the Court issues guidelines as sought by the SCBA, it could mark a watershed moment for women’s rights jurisprudence in India — ensuring that no woman, regardless of her social or economic background, is ever forced to “prove” her womanhood again.



Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Equality Before Law

Encroachment on Public Land: A Growing Threat to Governance and Public Welfare

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores