Menstrual Hygiene Is A Fundamental Right: SC's Landmark Judgment

“A period should end a sentence, not a girl’s education.”

With this powerful line, the Supreme Court on Friday delivered a landmark judgment that places menstrual hygiene within the core of constitutional rights. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that access to dignified menstrual hygiene is a fundamental right under the Constitution. The court directed the Centre and the states to ensure free sanitary napkins and functional toilets in all schools across the country.

The verdict marks a decisive shift in how menstruation is viewed in law and policy. The court made it clear that menstrual hygiene is not a welfare measure or a matter of charity. It is a constitutional obligation linked to equality, dignity, and education.

Why the Supreme Court made menstrual hygiene a fundamental right

The court’s reasoning rests on the idea of substantive equality. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law. However, the bench observed that treating everyone the same does not always produce equal outcomes. In many cases, identical treatment can deepen existing disadvantages.

In schools, girls face a biological reality that boys do not. When a girl lacks access to sanitary products or safe toilets, her ability to attend classes is directly affected. The court noted that in such circumstances, she cannot be said to be on equal footing with her male peers. The absence of menstrual hygiene facilities turns a natural biological process into a structural barrier.

The judgment observed that denying menstrual hygiene management entrenches gender disadvantage. It converts menstruation into a reason for exclusion rather than accommodation. This, the court said, violates the guarantee of equality.

The bench also located menstrual hygiene within Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to life includes the right to live with dignity. For menstruating students, the lack of hygiene facilities often leads to shame, stigma, and humiliation. The court noted that being forced to miss school or drop out due to menstruation violates bodily autonomy and privacy.

The ruling further linked menstrual hygiene to the right to education. Interpreting the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the court held that “free education” does not only mean the absence of tuition fees. It also requires the removal of financial and practical barriers that prevent a child from completing schooling.

If the cost of sanitary products leads to absenteeism or dropouts, the court said, the state fails in its duty. Education becomes conditional rather than guaranteed. In this sense, menstrual poverty directly undermines the constitutional promise of free and compulsory education.

What schools must provide under the court’s directions

To give effect to this right, the Supreme Court issued detailed and time-bound directions. These orders apply to all schools, whether government-run, aided, or private, in both urban and rural areas.

First, every school must provide sanitary napkins free of cost to girls. The court specified that these must be Oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins that meet environmental standards. Schools have been advised to make them easily accessible, preferably through vending machines inside toilet premises or through a designated school authority.

Second, schools must ensure safe and hygienic disposal of sanitary waste. Each toilet unit must have covered bins that are regularly cleaned. Disposal systems must comply with environmental and solid waste management rules.

Third, all schools must have functional and gender segregated toilets with reliable water supply. The court stressed that toilets must ensure privacy and safety. They must also be accessible to children with disabilities. Hand washing facilities with soap and water must be available at all times.

Fourth, the court directed schools to set up Menstrual Hygiene Management corners. These spaces must be equipped with essentials such as spare innerwear, spare uniforms, and disposable bags. The aim is to ensure that no girl has to leave school due to staining, leakage, or embarrassment.

Beyond infrastructure, the judgment placed strong emphasis on awareness and sensitisation. The court observed that stigma can make even the best facilities ineffective. Boys must be educated about menstruation to prevent teasing and harassment. Teachers, both male and female, must be trained to support menstruating students with sensitivity.

The National Council of Educational Research and Training and state education bodies have been directed to include gender responsive content on puberty and menstrual health in school curricula. District Education Officers will conduct regular inspections and collect anonymous feedback from students to monitor compliance.

Concluding the judgment, the bench sent a message directly to students. It said that if a girl has missed school because her body was treated as a burden, the fault is not hers. With this verdict, the court has affirmed that dignity, equality, and education cannot be suspended once a month.