Law Notify : The Supreme Court of India on Friday held that the right to menstrual health and access to proper menstrual hygiene management facilities are intrinsic to the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan ruled that menstrual health is inseparably connected to the constitutional guarantees of life, dignity, privacy, equality, and education. The Court emphasised that access to safe, effective, and affordable menstrual hygiene measures is essential for adolescent girls to achieve the highest attainable standard of sexual and reproductive health, a principle recognised both in Indian constitutional jurisprudence and international human rights law.
The ruling was delivered in a case concerning the pan-India implementation of the Union government’s Menstrual Hygiene Policy for school-going girls in government and government-aided educational institutions. The Court examined whether the absence of gender-segregated sanitation facilities and the lack of access to menstrual absorbents violated the constitutional right to education and the dignity of girl children.
Placing menstrual hygiene within the framework of substantive equality under Articles 14 and 15, the Court observed that formal equality alone was insufficient unless supported by conditions that ensured equal participation and real opportunity. It noted that systemic barriers such as inadequate sanitation infrastructure and the non-availability of menstrual hygiene products disproportionately hinder girls’ participation in education, thereby frustrating the objectives of Article 21A and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
The Bench further held that denial of menstrual hygiene management facilities directly undermines the dignity of the girl child, which lies at the core of the right to life. Reiterating settled constitutional doctrine, the Court explained that dignity includes the right to live free from humiliation, exclusion, and avoidable suffering.
On the aspect of privacy, the Court reaffirmed that following Justice KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India, privacy is firmly embedded within Article 21 and imposes both negative and positive obligations on the State. These obligations extend beyond non-interference and require affirmative action, including the provision of adequate sanitation and hygiene infrastructure.
The judgment drew strength from earlier landmark decisions such as Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, and Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, where the right to life was expansively interpreted to include conditions necessary for living with human dignity. By extending this reasoning to menstrual health, the Court has effectively constitutionalised access to menstrual hygiene products and facilities.
The verdict also placed menstrual hygiene within the broader continuum of reproductive and sexual health rights, recognising the State’s duty to provide education and information essential for informed decision-making and bodily autonomy. The Court observed that denial of such access leads to absenteeism, educational disadvantage, and social exclusion, particularly among girls from marginalised and economically weaker backgrounds.
Underscoring the transformative role of constitutional adjudication, the Bench stated that the ruling was meant to have an impact beyond the courtroom. It is intended to guide policymakers, educational institutions, teachers, parents, and society in addressing long-standing social taboos and structural neglect that have historically turned menstruation into a source of stigma and disadvantage.
