The Supreme Court has issued detailed directions to all States and Union Territories to ensure menstrual hygiene facilities, free sanitary napkins and functional hand-washing infrastructure in every school across the country, irrespective of whether the institution is government-run or privately managed.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has recognised the right to menstrual hygiene and access to menstrual hygiene products as a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
At the outset, the Court framed the constitutional inquiry around the systemic exclusion of adolescent girls from the educational process due to the absence of menstrual hygiene facilities. The Bench considered, in substance, whether the unavailability of gender-segregated toilets and non-access to menstrual absorbents results in a violation of the guarantee of equality under Article 14, not only in its formal sense but in terms of equality of opportunity and meaningful participation in education.
Closely allied to this, the Court examined whether such deprivation undermines the fundamental right to education under Article 21A and the statutory right to free and compulsory education under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, by creating structural and financial barriers that impede regular attendance and continuation in school. Separately, the Court addressed whether the right to dignified menstrual health forms an intrinsic component of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Equality, Education and Menstruation: Court’s Reasoning
While examining whether denial of menstrual hygiene facilities affects constitutional rights, the Court made it clear that the right to education cannot survive in conditions that systematically exclude menstruating girls from classrooms. The Bench observed in unambiguous terms:
“There is no doubt that the right to education loses its spirit if such conditions exist that exclude menstruating girl children from the educational process. As stated aforesaid, addressing the impediments through affirmative actions would be consistent with the substantive approach to equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The Court held that treating menstruating girls identically to others, without accounting for the biological and social realities they face, including lack of menstrual hygiene management measures such as non-access to toilets, non-availability of menstrual absorbents and the absence of safe disposal mechanisms, amounts to a denial of substantive equality.
Addressing the compounded disadvantage faced by girls with disabilities, the Court observed that where gender intersects with disability, the absence of accessible sanitation does not merely inconvenience, it excludes.
Dignity, Autonomy and the Right to Life
Placing menstrual health firmly within Article 21, the Court rejected the notion that menstruation-related hardship is a matter of personal adjustment.
“Human dignity cannot be fragmented. The right to live with dignity necessarily includes the right to manage one’s biological processes in conditions of safety, privacy and autonomy. To compel a girl child to endure indignity during menstruation is to deny the essence of Article 21.”
The Court emphasised that dignity is not an abstract value, but one that must be realised through material conditions in schools.
“The right to privacy and decisional autonomy are rendered meaningless where a menstruating girl child is left with no choice but to stay away from school or manage menstruation in degrading conditions.”
Right to Education and Menstrual Hygiene
While interpreting the scope of Article 21A and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Court underscored that the constitutional guarantee of education is not limited to access or enrolment, but comprehends free, compulsory and quality education in its substantive sense.
In this context, the Court recognised that the absence of menstrual hygiene management facilities, including access to sanitary products, gender-segregated toilets, water and safe disposal mechanisms, creates both financial and structural barriers for menstruating girls, rendering the promise of free education illusory. The Court further held that all schools, whether established, owned or controlled by the State or privately managed, are mandatorily bound by the “norms and standards” prescribed under Section 19 of the RTE Act. Any deviation, it observed, carries enforceable consequences: privately managed schools risk de-recognition, while failure by government schools attracts direct State accountability.
The Court held that menstrual hygiene management is not a discretionary welfare measure but a core component of the right to education under Article 21A, integral to ensuring regular attendance, meaningful participation and continuity in schooling. Without addressing menstruation-related barriers, the Court concluded, the constitutional guarantee of free, compulsory and quality education remains unattainable for adolescent girls.
Role of Men, Parents and Educational Institutions
In a notable departure from conventional discourse, the Court expressly addressed the responsibility of boys, men and institutions in dismantling menstrual stigma, noting that the exclusion of boys and men from conversations surrounding menstruation perpetuates stigma, silence and misinformation.
The Court further underscored that the burden of menstrual dignity cannot be placed on children themselves but should be placed on parents as well. Parents, schools and the State are collective duty-bearers under the Constitution, entrusted with ensuring that no child is excluded from education on account of natural biological processes.
Schools, the Court said, must be viewed not merely as spaces of instruction, but as constitutional institutions. The Court held that educational institutions are under an obligation to provide an environment that safeguards health, dignity and equality. Failure to do so strikes at the very foundation of the right to education.
Directions Issued by the Supreme Court on Menstrual Hygiene
Having exhaustively examined the constitutional and statutory framework governing menstrual hygiene, education, dignity and equality, the Court issued the following directions:
I. Toilet and Washing Facilities
To ensure privacy, hygiene and accessibility for menstruating students within school premises, the Court issued the following directions:
1. All States and Union Territories shall ensure that every school, whether Government-run or privately managed, in both urban and rural areas, is provided with functional, gender-segregated toilets with usable water connectivity, equipped with hand-washing facilities, and with soap and water available at all times.
2. All existing and newly constructed school toilets shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that ensures privacy, safety and accessibility, including by adequately catering to the needs of children with disabilities.
3. All school toilets shall be equipped with functional hand-washing facilities, with soap and water available at all times.
II. Availability of Menstrual Absorbents
With a view to ensuring dignified, timely and effective access to menstrual hygiene materials within school premises, the Court issued the following directions:
1. All States and Union Territories shall ensure that every school, whether Government-run or privately managed, in both urban and rural areas, provides oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins, manufactured in compliance with ASTM D-6954 standards, free of cost to girl students.
2. Such sanitary napkins shall be made readily accessible within school premises, preferably within toilet facilities through sanitary napkin vending machines, and where immediate installation is not feasible, at a designated place or through a designated authority within the school; schools shall also ensure availability of supportive materials and facilities, including Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM) corners equipped to address menstruation-related exigencies.
III. Disposal of Sanitary Waste
With a view to ensuring hygienic, safe and environmentally compliant management of menstrual waste in schools, the Court issued the following directions:
1. All States and Union Territories shall ensure that every school, whether government-run or privately managed, is equipped with a safe, hygienic and environmentally compliant mechanism for the disposal of sanitary napkins, in accordance with the latest Solid Waste Management Rules.
2. Each toilet unit in schools shall be provided with a covered waste bin for the collection of sanitary waste, and regular cleaning and maintenance of such bins shall be ensured at all times.
IV. Awareness and Training on Menstrual Health and Puberty
With a view to dismantling stigma, improving awareness and ensuring institutional support for menstruating students, the Court issued the following directions:
1. The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) shall incorporate gender-responsive curricula on menstruation, puberty and related health concerns, including conditions such as PCOS and PCOD, with the objective of breaking taboos and fostering informed, age-appropriate understanding of menstrual health and hygiene.
2. All teachers, whether male or female, shall be adequately trained and sensitised on menstrual hygiene, including appropriate ways of supporting and assisting menstruating students.
3. Information regarding child helpline and the availability of Jan Aushadhi Suvidha Oxo-Biodegradable Sanitary Napkins shall be widely disseminated through social media, print media, radio advertisements, television advertisements, cinema advertisements, and outdoor publicity such as bus-queue shelter branding, bus branding, auto-wrapping and wall paintings.
V. Monitoring and Accountability
The following directions were issued on monitoring and accountability-
1. The District Education Officer (DEO) shall conduct periodic inspections, preferably once a year, of school infrastructure, with particular focus on toilet and washing facilities, availability of menstrual absorbents, sanitary waste disposal mechanisms, and training and awareness measures undertaken by the school.
2. During such inspections, the DEO shall mandatorily obtain anonymous feedback from students through a tailored survey.
3. Any action taken pursuant to such inspections shall give due regard to the responses received from students.
4. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), or, as the case may be, the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (SCPCR), is requested to oversee the implementation of the aforesaid directions and take necessary steps as per RTE Act.
5. The Court clarified that the directions issued are not intended to discontinue or replace existing steps taken by States through their policies, schemes or programmes, but shall operate as mandatory standards, in addition to measures already in place, including those under the Union’s Menstrual Hygiene Policy for School Girls.
6. Observing the nature and gravity of the issue, the Court issued a continuing mandamus, directing the Union of India to ensure compliance with the directions and guidelines across all States and Union Territories. The Union was directed to apprise the Court of compliance by the States, thereby assuming a supervisory and coordinating role in implementation. The Union of India, States and Union Territories were directed to ensure strict compliance within a period of three months from the date of pronouncement of the judgment.
7. In its concluding remarks, the Court emphasised that the judgment is not addressed solely to legal stakeholders, but also to classrooms, teachers, parents and society at large. The Court observed that silence around menstruation has real consequences, noting that absenteeism caused by stigma treats a girl’s body as a burden, when “the fault is not hers.”
8. Underscoring the transformative intent of the ruling, the Court expressed that the words of the judgment must travel beyond courtrooms and law reports, and reach the everyday conscience of society, where true change must occur.
The Court further directed the Registry to forward copies of the judgment to all High Courts, all States and Union Territories, and key Union Ministries including Health and Family Welfare, Education, Drinking Water and Sanitation, and Women and Child Development. The matter was ordered to be listed after three months, along with compliance reports to be filed by the States and Union Territories before the same Bench.
Appearances
Petitioner- Mr. Varun Thakur, Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, Adv. Mrs. Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ramkaran, Adv. Dr. M.K Ravi, Adv. Ms. Shraddha Saran, Adv. Ms. Alka Goyal, Adv. For M/s.Varun Thakur & Associates, AOR
Respondents- Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, Adv. Mr. Veer Vikrant Singh, Adv. Mr. Rohit Pandey, Adv. Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv. Ms. Disha Singh, AOR Ms. Eliza Barr, Adv. Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Mr. Prashant Bhagwati, Adv. Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Neha Singh, Adv. Ms. Sugandha Anand , AOR Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mrs. Devika A.l., Adv. Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Dr. Ravindra Chingale, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, AOR Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Adv. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG, Sr. Adv. Ms. Misha Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Nakul Mohta, Adv. Mr. Amulya Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Ayush Kashyap, Adv. Ms. Surabhi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Ms. G. Sushmita, Adv. Ms. M. Harshini, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Ms. Debarati Sadhu, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Bhalla, Adv. Mr. B Jagat Nayan, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Ms. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Adv. Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Adv. Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Vats, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
