Menstrual Leave in India: Gender Justice or a Barrier to Women’s Employment?

Abstract

Menstrual leave has moved in a single year from a scattered welfare practice into a contested constitutional question in India. Karnataka’s 2025 policy, upheld by its High Court in April 2026, sits alongside a Supreme Court that in March 2026 declined to mandate a national scheme, warning explicitly that a compulsory, gender-specific entitlement could make employers reluctant to hire women at all. This article examines whether menstrual leave, as an instrument of human resource policy, advances gender justice or instead functions as a hidden barrier to women’s employment. Drawing on statistical-discrimination theory, comparative evidence from Japan, Spain, Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea and Zambia, and the closely analogous domestic experience of the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, the article argues that the employment effect of menstrual leave is not fixed by the fact of mandation but by its design. A rigid, women-only, medically-certified entitlement recreates the very cost signal that depressed female hiring after the 2017 maternity amendment; a flexible, gender-neutral, self-certified entitlement embedded in a wider wellness architecture need not. The article closes with a set of design and implementation recommendations for HR practitioners operating in a fragmented, rapidly evolving regulatory environment.

1. Introduction: A Live Constitutional and Organisational Dilemma

For most of independent India’s labour history, menstruation had no formal place in employment law outside the state of Bihar, which since 1992 has granted two days of additional casual leave a month to female government employees. That changed abruptly between November 2025 and April 2026. In November 2025, the Government of Karnataka notified a Menstrual Leave Policy granting one paid day of leave per month, capped at twelve days a year, to every woman employee aged eighteen to fifty-two across public and private establishments, including contractual and outsourced workers. In April 2026, the Karnataka High Court, in Chandravva Hanamant Gokavi v. State of Karnataka, went further: it held that the policy had constitutional force under Articles 14, 15(3), 21, 39(e) and 42, and directed the state to enforce it uniformly across the organised and unorganised sectors alike.

Almost simultaneously, a differently constituted bench of the Supreme Court was hearing an unrelated but related petition, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, asking the Court to direct the Union and the states to frame a nationwide menstrual leave policy. On 13 March 2026 the Court declined. It did not deny that painful menstruation is a legitimate concern; it questioned the wisdom of solving it through a compulsory, gender-marked legal category. The bench’s central worry, that a mandatory paid entitlement tied only to female employees could make employers reluctant to hire women in the first place, echoed almost exactly the empirical debate that had followed India’s last major gender-specific leave mandate: the 2017 extension of paid maternity leave from twelve to twenty-six weeks.

This is the HR dilemma at the centre of this article. India has, within a few months, produced two judicial bodies reading the same underlying problem in opposite registers: one as a dignity claim that the state must enforce, the other as a labour-market risk that legislation should not create by fiat. Because no central statute exists, and because Karnataka’s approach is being challenged by employer associations even as it is being enforced, HR functions in India now operate in a genuinely unsettled environment. The purpose of this article is not to adjudicate between the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court, which is a question for constitutional courts, but to ask a narrower and more tractable HR question: under what design conditions does menstrual leave function as an instrument of gender justice rather than as a barrier to women’s employment? The article’s central claim is that the outcome is not determined by the presence or absence of a legal mandate but by four specific design variables — categorisation, certification, integration, and monitoring — each of which is within the control of HR policy even where the underlying leave entitlement is set by law.

2. Literature Review

Scholarship on menstrual leave divides along a fault line that maps closely onto the split between the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court described above. One strand of the literature treats menstrual leave as an application of substantive rather than formal equality: because menstruation is a recurring biological reality that ordinary workplace design was never built to accommodate, treating men and women identically is not treatment as equals but treatment that ignores a real difference in circumstance. This is essentially the constitutional reasoning the Karnataka High Court adopted when it linked menstrual leave to Articles 14, 15(3), 21, 39(e) and 42, framing menstrual leave alongside maternity protection as a facilitative rather than a discriminatory category.

A second strand, most prominently associated with Levitt and Barnack-Tavlaris (2020) in the Palgrave Handbook of Critical Menstruation Studies, warns that sex-specific leave, introduced into a workplace culture that has not first addressed menstrual stigma, risks the opposite outcome: it can entrench the perception of menstruating employees as a predictable, recurring cost centre, and it can reinforce the medicalisation of a normal bodily process by treating every period as an incapacity requiring formal leave. Bhandari’s (2025) India-specific analysis in the Indian Journal of Public Administration frames the central HR question in almost identical terms to those used here: will menstrual leave be read, socially and managerially, as an accommodation analogous to maternity leave, which is broadly accepted despite its cost, or as a special privilege that appears to undercut the claim to formal equality that many working women themselves value.

A third, smaller but growing body of comparative empirical work, exemplified by recent policy analyses of the menstrual leave debate published in 2026, has begun to move past the abstract equality argument towards uptake and productivity data. This literature finds a striking and consistent pattern across very different legal regimes: formal entitlement to menstrual leave and actual use of that entitlement are only loosely connected, and the gap between the two is itself shaped by exactly the design variables — certification requirements, confidentiality, and whether the leave is gender-marked or folded into a neutral pool — that the equality-versus-stigma debate predicts should matter. Together, these three strands of literature converge on the same conclusion: whether menstrual leave helps or harms is not answered by the existence of a legal right but by how that right is operationalised inside the organisation.

3. Theoretical Framework: Why a Well-Intentioned Mandate Can Backfire

The Supreme Court’s concern that a compulsory, women-only leave entitlement could discourage employers from hiring women is not merely a political intuition; it restates a well-established idea in labour economics known as statistical discrimination. The theory, developed independently by Phelps (1972) and Arrow (1973), holds that when an employer cannot observe an individual worker’s true productivity or cost in advance, the employer will rely on the average characteristics of the group that worker belongs to as a proxy. If female employees, as a group, are believed on average to carry a higher and more predictable direct cost than male employees, because of an entitlement that applies only to them, a rational, non-prejudiced employer may still prefer to hire fewer women, or may factor the expected cost into starting salaries and promotion decisions. This differs from the classical taste-based discrimination described by Becker (1957), where an employer discriminates because of animus or a preference for not working alongside a particular group; statistical discrimination can arise even among employers who hold no such preference at all, purely as a rational response to a cost signal that is gender-specific and legally mandated.

The mechanism matters for HR practice for a precise reason: it identifies exactly which feature of a leave policy creates the employment risk, and that feature is not the existence of the benefit but its group-specific attachment. A benefit that applies to every employee equally, or that is allocated on a needs basis that is not visibly tied to gender at the point of hiring, does not generate the same statistical signal, because it does not differentiate the expected cost of hiring a woman from the expected cost of hiring a man. This is the theoretical basis for the design-contingent thesis advanced in this article: the discrimination risk the Supreme Court identified is real and economically well-founded, but it is a property of rigid, gender-marked mandates specifically, not of menstrual leave as such.

A related concept from the same literature, the distinction between statistically accurate beliefs and inaccurate stereotypes, is also relevant here. Even where the underlying cost differential is small, as the low uptake data discussed in Section 6 suggests it is, employer perception can diverge from that reality and still drive hiring behaviour, because perception, not audited cost, is what actually enters an employer’s decision calculus. This suggests that an HR strategy aimed only at minimising the real fiscal cost of menstrual leave will be insufficient; managing the perceived cost and the visibility of the entitlement is at least as important.

4. Research Methodology

This article adopts a doctrinal and comparative policy-analysis method rather than a primary empirical one. It draws on three categories of secondary material:

• first, the text of the relevant judicial decisions and government notifications, principally the Karnataka Menstrual Leave Policy, 2025, the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in Chandravva Hanamant Gokavi, and the Supreme Court’s disposal of Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development;
• second, published uptake and labour-market data from jurisdictions that have implemented menstrual leave, including Japan, Spain, Indonesia and Taiwan, and from India’s own experience with the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017; and
• third, the academic literature on statistical discrimination and on the menstrual leave debate specifically.

The analysis proceeds by triangulating the legal reasoning in the Indian cases against the empirical uptake and hiring-effect evidence from comparable mandates, in order to test whether the Supreme Court’s hiring-discrimination concern is supported, qualified, or contradicted by the available data. The approach is explicitly interpretive and normative in its final section, where design recommendations are derived rather than tested; this is appropriate to an HR-practice article but is acknowledged as a limitation in Section 11.

5. The Indian Legal and Policy Landscape

5.1 Karnataka: From Executive Notification to Constitutional Entitlement

Karnataka’s policy traces to a 2024 expert-panel report commissioned to draft a Right of Women to Menstrual Leave and Free Access to Menstrual Health Products Bill; the panel had recommended six days of leave a year, a figure the state cabinet doubled when it approved the Menstrual Leave Policy, 2025. The policy was formally notified on 12 November 2025 and operationalised by a government order dated 20 November 2025, granting one paid day of menstrual leave per month, up to twelve days annually, to women aged eighteen to fifty-two across factories, commercial establishments and plantations, with no medical certificate required and no eligibility conditions beyond age and sex. A companion Karnataka Menstrual Leave and Hygiene Bill, 2025 was tabled to give the policy permanent statutory backing, but has not yet been enacted, leaving the policy resting on executive notification alone.

That gap became the subject of litigation when a hotel worker in the unorganised sector, Chandravva Hanamant Gokavi, petitioned the Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court after being denied the leave to which the notified policy entitled her. In its judgment of 15 April 2026, the High Court, per Justice M. Nagaprasanna, upheld the policy’s constitutional validity, holding that equality under the Constitution does not require identical treatment but fair recognition of genuine biological difference, and connecting the entitlement to the dignity guarantee in Article 21 alongside Articles 14, 15(3), 39(e) and 42. Crucially, the Court extended the obligation to the unorganised sector, where the practical gap between a notified right and its enjoyment tends to be widest, and directed the state government to issue interim guidelines ensuring uniform enforcement pending the Bill’s enactment. Employer associations have since challenged aspects of the notification, so the policy’s final legal architecture remains in motion even as it is being actively enforced.

5.2 The Supreme Court: An Executive Question, Not a Judicial Mandate

The Supreme Court’s engagement with the issue considerably predates the Karnataka litigation. The same petitioner, Shailendra Mani Tripathi, had first approached the Court in 2023, and the bench then led by Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud declined to intervene, observing that the question of whether a mandatory leave would encourage or discourage female workforce participation was a matter of government policy rather than one for judicial direction, and asking the Ministry of Women and Child Development to examine whether a model policy could be framed after consulting stakeholders. When the matter returned to the Court in March 2026, before a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, the outcome was substantively the same but the language sharper: the Court, while accepting that painful menstruation raises a legitimate concern, stated in open court that mandating leave through legislation could operate as what one report characterised as a double-edged sword for working women, and pressed the point that an employer asked to bear a new paid-leave cost might simply hire fewer women. The Court again declined to issue a mandatory direction, again routed the matter to the Ministry with instructions to consider a model policy after stakeholder consultation, and again noted approvingly that several states and private employers had already introduced menstrual leave voluntarily, citing Bihar’s decades-old scheme and Kerala’s provision for female students as examples of workable, non-mandatory design.

5.3 A Fragmented National Landscape

Outside Karnataka, India’s menstrual leave landscape remains a patchwork rather than a system.

Bihar has offered government employees two additional days of monthly casual leave since 1992. Kerala extended relaxations to female students in state universities in 2023. Odisha introduced comparable provisions in 2024. No central statute exists: the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 is silent on menstruation, and a private member’s Menstruation Benefits Bill, 2017, introduced in the Lok Sabha, lapsed without government support. For HR functions operating across more than one state, or for multinational employers with Indian operations, this fragmentation is itself a distinct compliance risk, independent of the substantive question of whether menstrual leave is good policy: an organisation with offices in Karnataka, Bihar and, say, Maharashtra faces three different baseline obligations, none harmonised with the others, and none yet settled by a final appellate ruling.

6. Comparative International Practice: What Uptake Data Actually Shows

If the statistical-discrimination mechanism described in Section 3 is the theoretical risk, the empirical record from jurisdictions that already mandate menstrual leave offers a way to test how large that risk actually is in practice, and the record is unusually consistent: formal entitlement translates into very low actual uptake almost everywhere it has been studied, which narrows, though it does not eliminate, the scale of any true cost-based hiring effect.

Japan

Japan is the longest-running example. Article 68 of the Labour Standards Law has permitted women whose work would be especially difficult during menstruation to take leave since 1947, but Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare survey data repeatedly finds that fewer than one per cent of eligible women actually use it, down from roughly twenty per cent in 1960 and thirteen per cent in 1981. Employers are not required to pay for the leave, and as of 2020 only around thirty per cent of companies offered full or partial pay for it, so unpaid leave frequently competes with ordinary sick leave, which many women take instead precisely to avoid disclosing menstruation to a male manager.

Indonesia, Taiwan and South Korea

Indonesia’s 2003 labour law entitlement of up to two paid days a month shows a similar pattern of formal availability and inconsistent real-world implementation, with many employers requiring medical certificates that function as an informal barrier, and others simply not complying. Taiwan’s 2002 Gender Equity at Work Act caps menstrual leave at three days a year at half pay before it begins to count against ordinary sick leave, a design that itself limits both uptake and any cost signal to employers. South Korea has had a nominal entitlement since 1953 whose use has likewise declined over time.

Spain

Spain is the most closely watched recent case because it is the only jurisdiction to have introduced a fully paid entitlement, three to five days a month, subject to a doctor’s note, as recently as 2023, making it possible to observe both pre- and post-implementation labour-market data over a comparable horizon. The results one and two years in are striking: Spain’s Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migration recorded that the leave had been used only 1,559 times in the first eleven months, an average of well under five people a day nationally, and by the two-year mark in February 2025 cumulative use stood at only around 2,668 women, each taking an average of roughly three days. Commentators attribute the gap between the entitlement’s scope and its use to the same stigma and disclosure barriers documented in Japan, compounded in Spain’s case by the requirement of a doctor’s note, which adds a privacy cost to a benefit that was meant to remove one. Because uptake has been so limited, analysts including those writing for The Conversation in 2026 note that there is, as yet, no clear evidence either way as to whether the Spanish law has measurably affected employers’ willingness to hire women, precisely because the policy has not been used at a scale that would generate a detectable cost signal.

Comparative Pattern

The comparative pattern, then, cuts against a simple version of the Supreme Court’s hiring-discrimination concern: if menstrual leave were routinely and heavily used, the statistical-discrimination mechanism described in Section 3 would predict a real and measurable cost differential between male and female labour, and a corresponding hiring penalty. What the Japanese, Indonesian, Taiwanese and Spanish data show instead is that stigma, disclosure discomfort, certification barriers and low managerial support consistently suppress uptake to a fraction of a per cent to a few per cent of eligible workers, which caps the realistic size of any cost-based hiring effect even before considering whether employers respond to actual costs or merely to perceived ones. This does not make the concern baseless — as Section 3 noted, perception can diverge from realised cost and still drive behaviour — but it does mean the risk is more plausibly managed through the design features discussed in Section 9 than eliminated only by refusing to legislate at all.

7. The Maternity Benefit Act, 2017: India’s Own Cautionary Precedent

The clearest domestic evidence available to Indian HR practitioners is not international but close to home: the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, which extended paid maternity leave from twelve to twenty-six weeks and made crèche facilities mandatory in establishments with fifty or more employees. Unlike the low-uptake menstrual leave regimes surveyed above, maternity leave is near-universally used by the population it covers, which makes it a much sharper test of the statistical-discrimination hypothesis, because the cost signal to employers is real, recurring, and impossible to avoid through non-disclosure.

The results were widely reported and are now the subject of more rigorous academic scrutiny. A 2018 TeamLease Services survey of 350 start-ups and small and medium enterprises across ten sectors found that roughly a quarter of employers openly admitted to a preference for hiring male candidates after the amendment, and a further substantial share said they would factor the added cost into hiring decisions for women, together implying that close to two-thirds of surveyed employers reported some negative effect on female hiring. Contemporaneous industry estimates suggested that eleven to eighteen lakh women could lose employment opportunities in the first year alone, against a backdrop in which India’s female labour-force participation rate had already fallen from roughly thirty-seven per cent in 2005 to twenty-seven per cent in 2013. A more recent and methodologically rigorous IZA discussion paper by Banerjee, Jaiswal and Mukhopadhyay (2026), using nationally representative Annual Survey of Industries data in a difference-in-differences framework, examines the same reform’s effect on firms’ hiring decisions and gender-specific employment outcomes, adding econometric weight to what the earlier industry surveys had suggested impressionistically. A qualitative study published in the International Journal of Organizational Analysis (2024), based on interviews with sixteen female employees and twelve HR managers, likewise found that while the amendment had raised women’s awareness of their own rights, concerns about hiring discrimination persisted among the HR managers themselves, alongside a continuing need for stronger managerial support and a more inclusive workplace culture to offset the statistical signal the policy had created.

The maternity leave experience is instructive for menstrual leave policy design for two related reasons.

• First, it confirms that the statistical-discrimination mechanism in Section 3 is not merely theoretical in the Indian labour market; it has already been observed following a comparable, women-only, high-uptake mandate.
• Second, and more usefully for HR practice, it identifies the feature that made the maternity mandate a strong cost signal: universal, unavoidable uptake by the covered population, combined with a category defined exclusively by sex.

Menstrual leave, as Section 6 showed, does not currently share the first of these features in any jurisdiction that has tried it; but if an Indian menstrual leave regime were designed in a way that increased uptake substantially, whether through normalisation, higher pay, or reduced stigma, it would move the policy closer to the maternity leave case and closer to the hiring-discrimination risk the Supreme Court flagged. This is precisely the tension HR design must navigate: increasing use to deliver on the policy’s dignity purpose while managing category-visibility to avoid recreating a maternity-style cost signal.

8. Voluntary Corporate Practice in India: A Parallel Track

Even before any state legislated on the subject, a small number of Indian private employers had already begun experimenting with menstrual leave voluntarily, and their design choices offer a useful counterpoint to the mandated Karnataka model. Culture Machine, a Mumbai-headquartered digital content company, introduced a menstrual leave policy independent of ordinary vacation and sick leave as early as 2017. The most widely reported case is Zomato, which in 2020 announced up to ten days of paid period leave a year for all employees who menstruate, explicitly including transgender staff, a framing that from the outset avoided defining the benefit strictly by legal sex. The company’s leadership paired the entitlement with an explicit cultural intervention, encouraging employees to state openly that they were taking period leave and asking male colleagues to treat such disclosures without discomfort, precisely the kind of managerial normalisation that the Japanese and Spanish uptake data suggest is otherwise the binding constraint on use. Other private employers, including Swiggy, Byju’s, the Malayalam newspaper Mathrubhumi, the data-security firm Seclore Technology and the electricals manufacturer Orient Electric, have since adopted comparable policies, with much of the wave of adoption concentrated in and after the pandemic period, when, as diversity consultant Aparna Mittal has observed, employee-welfare and work-life-balance considerations more generally rose up the corporate agenda.

These voluntary schemes are not a controlled experiment and their effect on hiring has not been rigorously measured, but they share three features that distinguish them from Karnataka’s mandated model and that anticipate the HR recommendations developed in Section 9:

• the leave is typically not badged as strictly female-only in its framing, even where its practical beneficiaries are mostly women;
• it is self-certified, with no medical proof demanded; and
• it is introduced alongside an explicit, leadership-driven effort to destigmatise its use rather than left to operate as a silent legal entitlement.

Whether these features are sufficient to fully neutralise a statistical-discrimination effect cannot be established from the available evidence, but their consistent presence across the voluntary adopters, and their consistent absence from the plain text of Karnataka’s mandated policy, is itself a useful signal about where the industry’s own risk-management instincts have converged.

9. Discussion: Synthesising the Legal, Theoretical and Empirical Evidence

Three bodies of evidence have been reviewed above: the competing constitutional reasoning of the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court; the statistical-discrimination mechanism that gives the Supreme Court’s concern its theoretical force; and the comparative and domestic empirical record, which shows very low uptake in mandated foreign regimes but a real, measured hiring penalty following India’s own high-uptake maternity leave mandate. Read together, these three bodies of evidence do not support either extreme position in the underlying debate. They do not support treating menstrual leave as costless or risk-free, because the maternity precedent shows that India’s labour market does respond to sex-specific leave mandates with reduced female hiring when the entitlement is heavily used. Nor do they support treating any mandate as inherently discriminatory and therefore illegitimate, because the low uptake documented in every jurisdiction that has actually implemented menstrual leave suggests the realistic cost differential is, at least for now, far smaller than the maternity leave comparison might imply, which is presumably part of why menstrual leave uptake in Spain has not yet produced any observable hiring effect at all.

The variable that determines which of these two patterns a given policy will follow is design, not mandation as such. Four design choices recur across the evidence reviewed:

Four design choices recur across the evidence reviewed: whether the category is gender-marked or gender-neutral at the point where hiring managers would notice it; whether access requires medical certification, which both suppresses uptake through stigma and creates a documentary trail of an employee’s reproductive health status; whether the entitlement stands alone as a distinct, separately visible leave type or is folded into a broader wellness or casual-leave pool that does not, by its label, single out menstruating employees; and whether the organisation actively monitors uptake against hiring, promotion and retention data so that any emerging discriminatory pattern is caught early rather than discovered only in a lawsuit or a labour-force survey years later. Karnataka’s policy, as currently notified, scores poorly on the first two of these variables — it is explicitly restricted to women aged eighteen to fifty-two, a category any hiring manager can infer from a candidate’s age and declared sex before an offer is even made — while scoring reasonably well on the third, since it requires no medical certificate. The voluntary corporate schemes reviewed in Section 8 tend to do somewhat better on framing and normalisation, though even Zomato’s otherwise progressive policy remains legally anchored to menstruating employees as a category. This suggests that HR functions operating under Karnataka’s mandate, or anticipating a similar mandate elsewhere, retain meaningful room to manage the residual discrimination risk through policy design that sits on top of, rather than in place of, the legal minimum.

10. HR Design Recommendations

Building on the evidence and the design variables identified in Section 9, this article proposes five concrete recommendations for HR functions navigating menstrual leave policy in the current Indian legal environment.

1. Fold the entitlement into a gender-neutral wellness or casual-leave pool wherever the applicable law permits it. Rather than administering it as a stand-alone, visibly female-only category. Where a state mandate such as Karnataka’s requires the leave to be tracked separately for compliance purposes, that tracking should remain a back-office HR record and should not surface in a way that flags an employee’s gender or reproductive status to hiring managers, team leads, or anyone outside payroll and compliance.
2. Rely on self-certification rather than medical proof. The Spanish experience shows that a doctor’s-note requirement functions as a disclosure and privacy barrier that suppresses genuine use without materially reducing any underlying cost, while Karnataka’s own no-certificate design is, on the comparative evidence, the better model to replicate voluntarily in states without a mandate.
3. Pair the leave with complementary, non-leave supports. Such as rest facilities, flexible or remote-work hours on request, and reliable access to sanitary provisions, so that menstrual leave is one option among several rather than the sole formal mechanism through which menstrual health is accommodated. This reduces both stigma, by normalising accommodation as routine rather than exceptional, and the visibility of any single leave category.
4. Track uptake against hiring, interview-to-offer conversion, promotion and attrition data by gender on a recurring basis. Converting the Supreme Court’s abstract discrimination concern into a monitored, falsifiable internal metric rather than leaving it as an assumption in either direction. An organisation that sees no measurable divergence in these metrics after introducing menstrual leave has direct evidence to counter the discrimination concern; one that does see divergence has an early warning system rather than a lagging indicator discovered only in an external audit or a PLFS-style survey years later.
5. Engage proactively with the unsettled state of the law rather than waiting for finality. Because the Karnataka Menstrual Leave and Hygiene Bill, 2025 remains unenacted, because employer associations have challenged aspects of the notified policy, and because the Supreme Court has left the door open to a future Ministry-led model policy, HR and legal functions, particularly in multi-state or multinational organisations, should treat the current patchwork as the baseline to plan around rather than a temporary anomaly, and should advocate, through industry bodies, for a harmonised national floor modelled on the more employment-safe features identified above.

11. Limitations of the Study

This article is a doctrinal and comparative policy analysis rather than a primary empirical study, and its conclusions are correspondingly provisional in three respects.

1. First, the Karnataka policy and the associated litigation are recent enough that no Indian uptake or hiring-effect data yet exists; the comparative evidence from Japan, Spain, Indonesia and Taiwan is used as the best available proxy, but Indian labour-market institutions, informal-sector dynamics and social stigma around menstruation may not map onto those contexts precisely.
2. Second, the maternity leave comparison in Section 7, while the closest domestic analogue available, involves a benefit of a fundamentally different scale, duration and universality of uptake than menstrual leave, so the inference that similar mechanisms would operate at similar magnitude should be treated as a hypothesis rather than an established finding.
3. Third, the design recommendations in Section 10 are derived normatively from the theoretical and comparative evidence rather than tested through a controlled before-and-after study of any single Indian organisation; validating them would require exactly the kind of uptake-versus-hiring-outcome tracking this article recommends organisations adopt.

12. Conclusion

Menstrual leave in India is not, and should not be treated as, a binary choice between the Karnataka High Court’s rights-based enforcement and the Supreme Court’s hiring-discrimination caution. Both positions rest on defensible readings of the same underlying reality: menstruation is a genuine, recurring workplace consideration that formal equality has historically ignored, and a rigid, sex-specific, mandatory leave category can, as India’s own maternity leave experience demonstrates, measurably depress employers’ willingness to hire the group it is meant to protect. The evidence reviewed in this article suggests that the tension between these two truths is substantially resolvable at the level of HR design, even where the underlying legal entitlement is fixed by state mandate. Folding menstrual leave into a neutral wellness architecture, relying on self-certification, pairing it with non-leave supports, monitoring uptake against employment outcomes, and engaging actively with a still-evolving legal landscape together offer a practical path by which organisations can deliver the dignity and health benefits both courts implicitly recognise as legitimate, without reproducing the employment penalty the Supreme Court has explicitly warned against. Legislation alone, as the maternity leave precedent shows, is not sufficient to guarantee this outcome; HR practice is where that guarantee is actually made or lost.

References

1. Arrow, K. J. (1973). The theory of discrimination. In O. Ashenfelter & A. Rees (Eds.), Discrimination in Labor Markets. Princeton University Press.
2. Banerjee, S., Jaiswal, P., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2026). Mandated maternity leave and labour substitution: Firm-level evidence from India (IZA Discussion Paper No. 18888). Institute of Labor Economics.
3. Becker, G. S. (1957). The Economics of Discrimination. University of Chicago Press.
4. Bhandari, A. (2025). Efficacy of menstrual leave in the workplace: Law and the changing discourse on gender in India. Indian Journal of Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1177/09715215241301447
5. Chandravva Hanamant Gokavi v. State of Karnataka and Ors., High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench), judgment dated 15 April 2026.
6. de la Iglesia Aza, L., & Solymosi-Szekeres, B. (2025). Menstrual health and employment law, with a special focus on the new regulation in Spain. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations.
7. Dr Jaya Thakur v. Union of India & Ors., Supreme Court of India, order dated January 2026.
8. Karnataka Menstrual Leave Policy, 2025, Government Notification No. KAI 466 LET 2023, dated 12 November 2025.
9. Levitt, R. B., & Barnack-Tavlaris, J. L. (2020). Addressing menstruation in the workplace: The menstrual leave debate. In C. Bobel et al. (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Menstruation Studies (Ch. 43). Palgrave Macmillan.
10. Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 (India).
11. The Menstruation Benefits Bill, 2017 (private member’s bill, Ninong Ering, MP, Lok Sabha, India) — not enacted.
12. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. (2024). Periodic Labour Force Survey, Annual Report 2023-24. Government of India.
13. Periodic Labour Force Survey data reported to the Lok Sabha, Unstarred Question No. 3896, Ministry of Labour and Employment, 24 March 2025.
14. Phelps, E. S. (1972). The statistical theory of racism and sexism. American Economic Review, 62(4), 659-661.
15. Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development & Ors., Supreme Court of India, order dated 13 March 2026.
16. TeamLease Services. (2018). Impact of Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 on hiring: Survey of 350 start-ups and SMEs.
17. The Conversation. (2026, March 13). Menstrual leave: Stigma and uncertainty mean these progressive measures are being underused around the world.
18. The Guardian, cited in People Management (2024, June 10). A year on from Spain’s menstrual leave law – what have we learned?

Author’s Note

This article reflects my ongoing research into the intersection of gender justice and employment law in India. By examining menstrual leave through legal, economic, and HR lenses, I aim to highlight how policy design—not just mandation—shapes workplace equity. My hope is to spark dialogue among HR practitioners, policymakers, and scholars on building inclusive frameworks that empower women without unintentionally constraining their opportunities.

• Menstrual Leave in India: Locating a Constitutional Basis Beyond Reproductive Rights 
• Supreme Court Warns Mandatory Menstrual Leave May Harm Women’s Careers
• Menstrual Leave Is A Matter Of Right, Not Charity
• Civil Trial In Criminal Prosecution
• The 26-Week Paradox: Evaluating the Impact of Statutory Maternity Benefits on Female Hiring Patterns in SMEs