Karnataka HC Declares Menstrual Leave Fundamental Right Under Article 21

Source: Live Law| Date: April 15, 2026   

In a landmark ruling, Justice M. Nagaprasanna upholds the State's menstrual leave order and calls for its extension beyond registered establishments; grounding the entitlement firmly in Article 21 of the Constitution.

A woman who washes dishes at a small hotel in Mudalagi, Belgaum district; working from early morning to late evening; became the unlikely catalyst for one of the most significant judicial pronouncements on women's labour rights in recent Karnataka history. On 15 April 2026, the High Court of Karnataka's Dharwad Bench disposed of her writ petition with a sweeping direction: implement the State's menstrual leave policy immediately, in letter and in spirit, and extend its reach deep into the unorganised sector.

The petitioner, Chandravva Hanamant Gokavi, had approached the court after her representations to district authorities went unacknowledged. She sought enforcement of Government Order No. LD 466 LET 2023 dated 20 November 2025, which formally sanctioned one day of paid menstrual leave per month for working women across registered establishments in Karnataka.

The Policy and Its Genesis

Karnataka's journey to this policy was neither sudden nor simple. In 2024, the State constituted a dedicated expert committee; drawing in doctors, labour union representatives, IT and garment industry voices, academicians and women's organisations; to examine whether a structured menstrual leave framework was warranted. The committee's recommendations were then placed before the Law Commission of Karnataka, which conducted extensive stakeholder deliberations and unambiguously endorsed the policy.

The resulting Government Order of November 2025 was precise: one day of paid leave per month for all permanent, contract and outsourced women employees aged 18 to 52, working in establishments registered under five central labour statutes. The leave cannot be carried forward; no medical certificate is needed. A second order followed on 2 December 2025, extending the same benefit to women in State Government service.

"The call for menstrual leave is not a plea for privilege, but an assertion of dignity, fairness and humane understanding within the spaces women inhabit."

— Justice M. Nagaprasanna, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

Alongside these executive orders, the State tabled the Karnataka Menstrual Leave and Hygiene Bill, 2025 before the Legislature. The Bill goes further: it proposes two days of paid leave per month, covers educational institutions (including a 2% attendance relaxation for students), mandates free sanitary products at workplaces, and establishes a dedicated Karnataka Menstrual Leave and Hygiene Authority with quasi-judicial enforcement powers and a Rs. 5,000 penalty per contravention.

The Constitutional Scaffolding

Justice Nagaprasanna grounded the entire ruling in a meticulous constitutional framework. Drawing heavily on the Supreme Court's landmark 2026 decision in Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, the judgment holds that menstrual health is not an administrative afterthought; it is an expression of the right to life under Article 21.

The court traced the policy's legitimacy through three constitutional provisions: Article 15(3), which permits special provisions for women; Article 39(e), which protects workers from conditions unsuited to their health and strength; and Article 42, which mandates just and humane conditions of work. The State's executive power under Article 162, the court held, is entirely adequate to translate these directive principles into binding policy.

Crucially, the court dismissed any concern that differentiated treatment of women on account of menstruation might offend Article 14's equality guarantee. Men and women are biologically distinct, it reasoned; acknowledging that distinction in matters of health and dignity is not discrimination; it is the substance of equality.

The Unorganised Sector: The Hard Problem

Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the ruling is its explicit turn toward the unorganised sector; the very constituency that Chandravva Gokavi represents. The Government Orders of November and December 2025, as presently drafted, are confined to registered establishments under specific statutes. Daily wage workers, domestic helpers, hotel staff at unregistered eateries and millions of self-employed women fall entirely outside their ambit.

The court acknowledged the practical complexity forthrightly. The Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, had flagged the genuine difficulty of monitoring and enforcement in a heterogeneous, dispersed unorganised workforce. The judgment does not paper over this challenge. Instead, it calls on the State to adopt a 'facilitative mechanism' beyond regulatory frameworks; one built on sustained, pervasive sensitisation reaching every corner of Karnataka.

Citing the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand and the earlier Municipal Corporation of India v. Female Workers, the court underscored that social security entitlements have been judicially extended to muster-roll and domestic workers precisely because vulnerability cannot be made a disqualification.

Global and Domestic Context

The judgment situates Karnataka's policy within a rich international landscape, tracing the history of menstrual leave legislation across seven jurisdictions. The following table summarises the countries that have recognised or are deliberating menstrual leave:

Within India, the court noted Bihar's two-day paid menstrual leave for women Government employees, the failed Menstruation Benefit Bill of 2017, and the Supreme Court's 2024 direction in Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India; which cleared the path for State-level action; as the immediate precursor to Karnataka's initiative.

What the Order Directs

The court stopped short of issuing a detailed prescriptive code; conscious, as it noted, of the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature. But it directed the State to ensure strict and faithful implementation of the existing policy while the proposed Bill remains before the Legislature. Upon enactment of the Bill, the State must frame Rules without undue delay. In the interim, guidelines, circulars and administrative instructions must be issued to secure uniform implementation across all sectors; with particular attention to the unorganised sector.

Policy Timeline

• 2024 Karnataka constitutes an expert committee to examine menstrual leave policy; Law Commission invited to opine.
• Oct 2025 Draft policy published on https://karmikaspandana.karnataka.gov.in/; 75 responses received, 56 in favour (including 26 employers).
• 12 Nov 2025 Karnataka Gazette Extraordinary notification; menstrual leave policy formally announced.
• 20 Nov 2025 Government Order LD 466 LET 2023: 1 day paid leave/month for women aged 18–52 in registered establishments.
• 2 Dec 2025 Second Government Order: benefit extended to Karnataka State Government employees.
• 10 Dec 2025 Petitioner Chandravva Gokavi submits representation to Belagavi district authorities; no response received.
• Late 2025 Karnataka Menstrual Leave and Hygiene Bill, 2025 tabled before State Legislature.
• 13 Jan 2026 Writ Petition No. 109734 of 2025 heard and reserved for orders by Justice Nagaprasanna.
• 15 Apr 2026 Judgment pronounced; State directed to implement policy strictly and extend sensitisation to unorganised sector.

Significance and Open Questions

The ruling is significant on at least three counts. First, it anchors menstrual leave squarely in the fundamental rights chapter rather than treating it as a discretionary welfare measure; making future dilution by executive action constitutionally fraught. Second, its insistence on extending the policy's reach to unorganised workers lays a juridical foundation for future litigation and legislation. Third, it signals that the constitutional framework for gender-responsive labour law is broader than the Maternity Benefit Act alone.

Open questions remain. The Bill's proposal of two days per month differs from the current order's one day; the gap will need legislative resolution. The mechanics of enforcement in a sector defined by informality; where most workers lack written contracts and most employers are individuals with fewer than ten employees, remain genuinely unresolved.

"Men and women stand equal in the eyes of the law; yet, they are biologically distinct. To acknowledge such differences, particularly in matters concerning health, dignity, and bodily autonomy, is not to transgress the guarantee of equality, but to give it substantive meaning."

— Justice M. Nagaprasanna, WP No. 109734 of 2025

For Chandravva Gokavi, the woman who set all of this in motion, the judgment is both a vindication and a beginning. The test of the ruling's true impact will lie in whether the State can devise mechanisms that make the right real for women who clean dishes, roll beedis, and tend fields; the workers for whom it was most urgently needed.

BOTTOM LINE

Karnataka now has both an executive order and a pending Bill mandating paid menstrual leave; the first such framework in South India. The High Court has ruled that this is not charity but a constitutional right. The test of the ruling's impact will lie in whether the State can devise mechanisms that make it real for women who clean dishes, roll beedis, and tend fields; the workers for whom it was most urgently needed.