loader image

Supreme Court Modifies Direction to Mandate Provision of Compostable Sanitary Napkins by Schools; Expresses Discontent Over States’ Compliance Report

Supreme Court Modifies Direction to Mandate Provision of Compostable Sanitary Napkins by Schools; Expresses Discontent Over States’ Compliance Report

Jaya Thakur v. Government of India [Decided on 01-09-2026]

Compostable Sanitary Napkins In Schools

In a civil writ petition filed before the Supreme Court of India for reporting compliance of directions issued in the main judgment and further progress, a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan directed a change in the manner of collection of data and reflection of responses for the next cycle of reporting.

By an order dated 25-05-2026, the Court had sought a fresh report from all States regarding further progress on due compliance with its directions, and had also requested the A.S.G. for the Union of India to look into the aspect of the material of sanitary napkins to be distributed or made available in schools. In response, the Union filed an affidavit dated 31-08-2026 detailing progress on toilet and washing facilities, sanitary products, MHM corners, disposal systems, IEC activities, teacher sensitization, as well as DEO notices and inspections.

The Court acknowledged that progress had been made by the States/UTs but was of the opinion that a lot more needed to be done. Regarding the nature of the material of sanitary napkins, the Court stated that its judgment dated 30-01-2026 had directed that all States and Union Territories must ensure that every school provide oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins manufactured in compliance with ASTM D-6954 standards, made readily accessible preferably through vending machines. However, an interim application by the Indian Compostable Polymer Association brought to the Court’s notice that oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins broke down into fragments of nano plastics and microplastics upon disposal, exacerbating microplastic pollution. In turn, the Union requested the Court to consider directing the use of biodegradable napkins instead, noting that few States/UTs had raised the issue of non-availability of napkins of the earlier specification.

Hence, the Court emphasized the use of biodegradable and compostable napkins for two reasons: first, such napkins were free from harmful chemicals, bleaching agents, and synthetic fragrances that led to long-term health risks, and second, their use reduced the environmental burden inherited by children. Further, the Court also emphasized that the States shall slowly move towards more eco-friendly and scientifically validated menstrual absorbents. It was stated that the States/UTs may begin by promoting the use of reusable sanitary napkins by educating girl children about the manner of use and precautions to be taken while using them. Accordingly, the Court modified the said direction.

ALSO READ: Punjab & Haryana HC Pulls Up GMADA Over “Atrocious” Condition Barring Purchasers from Approaching Courts; Seeks Last 5 Years’ Demand Notices Data

Upon reviewing the States’/UTs’ responses, the Court expressed discontent with the manner in which compliance had been reported, noting that some responses exhibited non-application of mind or mere formality, with subjective matters reduced to statistics or yes/no answers. The Court identified discrepancies across several States/UTs, regarding claims of saturation in functional toilets that did not match reported figures for accessibility to children with special needs or gender-segregated facilities. It was also stated that the petitioner’s submission that the compliance affidavit did not disclose the number of cleaners appointed, appeared to have some logic.

The Court held that the right to education went beyond enrolment to address retention, and that mere declaration would not serve the purpose. It was stated that States/UTs should not to be lethargic in implementing changes for children with special needs as these children face barriers that go beyond ordinary challenges of schooling. The Court directed a change in the manner of data collection and reflection of responses for the next cycle, requiring District Education Officers to form teams of teachers to conduct surprise inspections across districts.

Additionally, the States/UTs were directed to take the gaps highlighted into consideration while reporting their next progress. It was directed that future responses shall reflect gaps rather than achievements, along with the cause of such gaps and the time required to bridge them. Thus, the matter was directed to be posted on 29-09-2026.

ALSO READ: Kerala HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Lawyer Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Woman Advocate Inside Court Hall

Appearances

For Petitioner – Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv., M/S. Varun Thakur & Associates (AOR), Mr. Varun Thakur, Mr. Ramkaran, Mr. Deepak Goel, Mr. M.K. Ravi, Ms. Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Ms. Kavya Jhawar, Ms. Nandini Rai, Mr. Aashay Shukla, Ms. Vishakha Singh Chauhan, Mr. S.P Singh, Mrs. Shraddha Saran

For Respondent – Mrs. Shirin Khajuria (Sr. Adv.), Mr. Lenin Singh Hijam (Adv. General, Sr. Adv.), Mr. Amit Kumar (Sr. Adv., Advocate General), Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, (Sr. Adv, Advocate General), Ms. Aishwarya Bhati (A.S.G.), Ms. Archana Pathak Dave (A.S.G.), Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava (A.A.G.), Mr. Ar Takkar (Sr. Adv.), Ms. Madhulika Upadhyay (AOR), Mr. Manish Kumar (AOR), Ms. Ankita Sharma (AOR), Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar (AOR), Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari (AOR), Ms. Swati Ghildiyal (AOR), Ms. Kajal Dalal (AOR), Ms. Sugandha Anand (AOR), Ms. Madhusmita Bora (AOR), Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker (AOR), Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker (AOR), Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande (AOR), Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar (AOR), Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi (AOR), Mr. Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal (AOR), Ms. K. Enatoli Sema (AOR), Mr. Karan Sharma (AOR), Mr. Sameer Abhyankar (AOR), Mr. Akshat Kumar (AOR), Ms. Misha Rohatgi (AOR), Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam (AOR), Mr. Shuvodeep Roy (AOR), Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee (AOR), Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal (AOR), Mr. Chritarth Palli (AOR), Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Mr. Veer Vikrant Singh, Mr. Rohit Pandey, Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Mr. Kumar Saurav, Mr. Arjun D Singh, Ms. Ishika Neogi, Ms. Prerna Singh, Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Mr. Prashant Bhagwati, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Ms. Neha Singh, Ms. Swati Tiwari, Mr. Gopal, Mr. Ashish Joshi, Mr. Dhruv Raman Singh, Mr. Vishnu Sjharma, Mr. Pawan Kishore Singh, Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Mr. Alim Anvar, Mr. Santhosh K, Mrs. Devika A.l., Mr. Rajan K Chaurasia, Ms. Silpi S Swain, Dr. Ravindra Chingale, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Mr. Mayank Sapra, Mr. Karun Shamra, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Mr. T.k. Nayak, Mr. Zh Isaac Haiding, Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Mr. Aditya Kumar, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Mr. Prang Newmai, Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Ms. Yachna Sharma, Ms. Arushi Chopra, Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Mr. Udit Choudhary, Mr. Vinayak Menon, Mr. Ajay K. Jain, Mr. Nakul Mohta, Mr. Amulya Upadhyay, Mr. P. Venkatraju, Ms. M. Harshini, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Ms. Debarati Sadhu, Mr. Dhruv Bhalla, Ms. Rashmi Prava Mohanty, Mr. Keshav Bansal, Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Mr. Varun Chugh, Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Ms. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Mr. Yogesh Vats, Mr. Manan Takkar, Mr. Narinder Verma

PDF Icon

Jaya Thakur v. Government of India

Preview PDF