Supreme Court Seeks Nationwide Guidelines Against Period Checks at Workplaces and Educational Institutions
Background of the Case
The Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine the need for nationwide guidelines to prevent women and girls from being subjected to invasive “period checks” during menstruation. This direction follows disturbing incidents where employees and students were asked to prove their menstrual status, violating dignity and bodily autonomy.
The matter reached the Supreme Court through a petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), which highlighted multiple instances of degrading practices across institutions.
Triggering Incident: Haryana University Controversy
In October 2024, three female sanitation workers at Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak, complained of menstrual sickness. Instead of being granted relief, the supervisors demanded that the women provide photographs of their sanitary pads as proof.
The workers were allegedly verbally abused and coerced into taking photographs in a washroom, causing severe humiliation.
Following public outrage, the Haryana government initiated an inquiry. Action has been taken against:
-
Two supervisors
-
The Assistant Registrar (administrative head)
-
The contracting company, which has been directed to terminate the supervisors
-
Proceedings have also begun under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 due to the caste dimension involved.
Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan expressed deep concern over what it called a “mindset problem” in institutions dealing with menstruation-related issues.
The Court said:
-
If a woman reports menstrual discomfort, the administration should simply accept it and reassign work.
-
Such incidents could have been avoided with basic sensitivity.
The bench appreciated the SCBA for raising the issue and formally issued notices to the Union Government and the Haryana Government, scheduling the next hearing for December 15.
Additional Incidents Highlighted by Petitioners
The SCBA petition pointed out that the Haryana case was not an isolated incident. Another severe case occurred in July 2024 at a school in Thane, Maharashtra, where:
-
Girl students from Classes 5 to 10
-
Were taken into washrooms
-
And subjected to physical menstrual checks by female attendants
-
After blood stains were found in a toilet
According to the petition, these incidents reflect a systemic disregard for the rights and dignity of women and minors.
Constitutional Provisions Implicated
The practice of checking menstrual status violates multiple constitutional protections:
Article 14 – Right to Equality
Invasive menstrual checks disproportionately affect women and impose discriminatory burdens based solely on biological processes.
Article 15(1) – Prohibition of Sex-Based Discrimination
Any action or policy that targets girls/women due to menstruation amounts to sex-based discrimination.
Article 19(1)(a) – Right to Privacy and Expression
Following Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), privacy is a fundamental right. Forcing disclosure or proof of menstrual status is a direct invasion of informational and bodily privacy.
Article 21 – Right to Life, Dignity, Bodily Autonomy
This is the most severely violated right.
Key precedents reinforcing Article 21 include:
-
Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) – Bodily integrity and reproductive autonomy are integral to dignity.
-
NALSA v. Union of India (2014) – Personal autonomy and dignity are core constitutional values.
-
Puttaswamy (2017) – Privacy includes bodily privacy and decisional autonomy.
Menstrual checks directly contradict these principles.
Statutes Relevant to the Issue
1. The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Applicable in the Haryana case because the workers belonged to Scheduled Castes. The Act penalizes humiliation, abuse, and coercion targeting SC/ST individuals.
2. Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
Although these incidents are not sexual in nature, forcing women to expose or prove their menstrual condition may fall under:
-
“Unwelcome physical or verbal conduct”
-
“Humiliating treatment likely to interfere with work”
-
Hostile work environment
Therefore, employers could be liable under the POSH Act.
3. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Relevant to the Maharashtra school incident, as the victims included minor girls.
4. Indian Penal Code (IPC) Provisions
Depending on circumstances:
-
Section 354 (outraging modesty)
-
Section 509 (insulting modesty)
-
Section 506 (criminal intimidation)
These may be invoked where humiliation and coercion occur.
Supreme Court Considers Introducing National Guidelines
Senior advocate Vikas Singh (SCBA) informed the Court that SCBA, with contributions from senior women lawyers including Aparna Bhat, Anitha Shenoy, and Anindita Pujari, would propose draft guidelines.
The Court noted that some states, like Karnataka, are adopting progressive measures — e.g., proposing one day of period leave per month for women workers.
This strengthened the Court’s view that nationwide standards are needed to prevent humiliation and ensure institutional sensitivity.
Administrative Action Taken in Haryana
The Haryana AAG informed the Court that:
-
Inquiry has been completed
-
Supervisors have faced action
-
Assistant Registrar has been held accountable
-
Contracting company instructed to terminate implicated staff
-
Proceedings initiated under the SC/ST Act
-
Written complaints by the three workers have been processed
Larger Implications of the Case
The Supreme Court’s intervention opens the door for:
-
Nationwide menstrual dignity policies
-
Prohibition of invasive menstrual verification practices
-
Mandatory training for supervisors and educational staff
-
Accountability mechanisms for misuse of authority
-
Integration of privacy and dignity principles in workplace and institutional rules
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to consider nationwide guidelines marks a pivotal moment for menstrual dignity in India. The disturbing incidents in Haryana and Maharashtra reflect deeper societal stigmas and institutional insensitivity that cannot be ignored.
By invoking constitutional protections and recognizing the need for policy reform, the Court is moving towards establishing a rights-based framework that respects dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy. If implemented properly, these guidelines could become a transformative step in safeguarding women and girls across workplaces and educational institutions.

Comments
Post a Comment