LawLoveLegal

I. Introduction The Supreme Court of India recently declined to mandate a nationwide policy on menstrual leave, observing that such a legal requirement may not necessarily be in the best interest of women in the workforce. The Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking judicial directions for compulsory menstrual leave but emphasised that the Union government should consider developing a policy framework after consulting stakeholders . The decision reflects a complex policy dilemma: while menstrual leave is often framed as a step toward gender-sensitive workplace reform , the Court cautioned that mandatory legal provisions could inadvertently reinforce discriminatory attitudes in hiring and workplace participation. The judgment therefore situates the issue within a broader constitutional debate involving gender equality, workplace rights, state policy obligations, and judicial restraint in socio-economic policymaking . II. Background of the Public Interest Litigation T...

Introduction In a significant ruling reinforcing the binding nature of executive policies , the Supreme Court of India has quashed a 2020 Rajasthan government notification creating new revenue villages in Barmer district, after finding that two villages were named after individuals , in direct violation of the State’s own policy. The Court held that such action was arbitrary and unconstitutional , offending Article 14 of the Constitution . Background of the Case The dispute arose from the Rajasthan government’s decision to create four new revenue villages — Nainoni Darziyon Ki Dhani Sagatsar Amargarh Hemnagar These villages were carved out of Meghwalon Ki Dhani , located within the revenue village of Sohda in Barmer district , pursuant to a proposal by the Gram Panchayat of Sohda . Acting under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 , the State issued a notification dated 31 December 2020 , formally declaring the new revenue villages. Administrative Process Prior to Notif...