Right to Menstrual Hygiene Is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling Explained
Background of the Case
The Supreme Court of India, in a significant rights-based judgment, has categorically held that the right to menstrual hygiene forms an intrinsic part of the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The ruling was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan while deciding a writ petition seeking directions to the Union of India and States to ensure free sanitary pads and separate toilets for girl students (Classes 6 to 12) in government-aided schools.
The Court expanded the scope of constitutional guarantees by linking menstrual health, dignity, equality, privacy, and access to education into a single enforceable rights framework.
Core Constitutional Questions Before the Court
The Bench framed and conclusively answered the following constitutional questions:
Whether the absence of gender-segregated toilets violates Article 14 (Right to Equality)
Whether denial of access to menstrual hygiene products violates Article 21 (Right to Life with Dignity and Privacy)
Whether lack of menstrual support infrastructure interferes with Article 21A (Right to Education)
Whether such failures contravene statutory obligations under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
The Court answered all questions in the affirmative.
Article 21: Menstrual Hygiene as a Component of Life and Dignity
The Supreme Court reiterated that Article 21 is not limited to animal existence but includes the right to live with human dignity, privacy, and bodily integrity.
The Court observed that:
Menstruation is a biological reality
Denial of basic facilities turns this natural process into a source of humiliation
Dignity is violated when girls are forced to skip school due to lack of toilets or sanitary products
The judgment held that menstrual hygiene cannot be left to charity, policy discretion, or welfare schemes, as it flows directly from constitutional obligation.
Relevant Judicial Precedents
Francis Coralie Mullin v Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981): Life under Article 21 includes dignity
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984): State has positive obligations to ensure dignified living conditions
Article 14: Equality, Participation, and Structural Barriers
The Court held that formal equality is insufficient where structural barriers prevent equal participation.
It observed that:
Girls are disproportionately affected by lack of toilets and menstrual facilities
Absenteeism caused by menstruation excludes girls from equal educational opportunity
Equality under Article 14 requires the State to remove disabling conditions, not merely treat everyone the same
Judicial Support
E.P. Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu (1974): Equality is antithetical to arbitrariness
Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018): Equality includes the right to live without stigma or exclusion
Article 21A and the Right to Education Act, 2009
The Court held that denial of menstrual hygiene facilities directly interferes with the right to education.
Statutory Framework
Article 21A mandates free and compulsory education
Section 19, RTE Act, 2009 prescribes minimum infrastructure norms, including toilets
The Court clarified that:
Compliance with Section 19 is mandatory for all schools—government or private
Persistent non-compliance may result in derecognition of schools
This makes menstrual hygiene infrastructure a statutory and constitutional requirement, not an optional welfare measure.
Right to Privacy and Bodily Autonomy
The judgment reaffirmed that privacy is inseparable from dignity.
The Court noted that:
Privacy violations occur when girls lack enclosed, safe spaces for menstrual management
The State has a positive obligation not only to refrain from intrusion but to actively protect privacy
Judicial Basis
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017): Privacy is a constitutionally protected right flowing from Article 21
Binding Directions Issued by the Supreme Court
The Court issued three mandatory and enforceable directions:
1. Infrastructure Mandate
All schools, government or private, must have:
Functional, gender-segregated toilets
Adequate water supply
Facilities accessible to persons with disabilities
All new schools must incorporate these features at the planning stage.
2. Menstrual Hygiene Products
Every school must:
Provide biodegradable sanitary napkins
Ensure availability within toilet premises, not merely in administrative offices
3. Menstrual Hygiene Management Systems
States and UTs must establish:
Emergency menstrual support systems
Spare uniforms and essential materials
Institutional mechanisms to address menstrual emergencies
Menstrual Health as Sexual and Reproductive Health Right
The Court recognised that menstrual hygiene is integral to:
Sexual and reproductive health
Access to health education and information
Achieving the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health
This aligns Indian constitutional jurisprudence with international human rights standards, including CEDAW obligations.
Broader Significance of the Judgment
The Court made a powerful social observation:
Progress must be measured by how society protects its most vulnerable.
The judgment speaks to:
Girls forced into absenteeism
Teachers constrained by lack of resources
Parents unaware of silent exclusions
Policy-makers treating menstrual health as secondary
It reframes menstruation from a private inconvenience to a public constitutional concern.
Conclusion
This judgment marks a decisive shift in Indian constitutional law by recognising menstrual hygiene as a non-negotiable fundamental right.
By grounding menstrual health in Articles 14, 21, and 21A, and enforcing RTE Act compliance, the Supreme Court has transformed a long-ignored issue into a matter of constitutional accountability.
The ruling sends a clear message:
A girl’s body cannot be the reason she is denied education, dignity, or equality.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment