The Supreme Court has held that the right to menstrual health and access to menstrual hygiene management facilities form an integral component of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21.
The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan passed the order while adjudicating a matter 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 case required the Court to examine whether the absence of gender-segregated sanitation facilities and lack of access to menstrual absorbents amounted to a violation of the constitutional right to education and dignity of girl children.
The Court held that menstrual health is inextricably linked to the constitutional guarantees of life, dignity, privacy, equality, and education. It reasoned that access to safe, effective, and affordable menstrual hygiene measures is essential for enabling adolescent girls to attain the highest attainable standard of sexual and reproductive health, a concept recognised in constitutional jurisprudence as well as international human rights law.
The judgment locates menstrual hygiene within the broader framework of substantive equality under Articles 14 and 15, observing that formal equality is insufficient unless accompanied by conditions that ensure equal participation and equal opportunity. The Court underscored that systemic barriers such as inadequate sanitation infrastructure and lack of menstrual hygiene products disproportionately impede the educational participation of girl students, thereby frustrating the objectives of Article 21A and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
Significantly, the Bench held that the inaccessibility of menstrual hygiene management measures undermines the dignity of the girl child, which forms the core of the right to life. Drawing upon established constitutional doctrine, the Court reiterated that dignity encompasses the right to live without humiliation, exclusion, or avoidable suffering. It further affirmed that privacy, now firmly embedded within Article 21 following Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, imposes both negative and positive obligations upon the State. These obligations include not only refraining from intrusion but also taking affirmative measures to ensure privacy through adequate sanitation and hygiene infrastructure.
The Court’s reasoning aligns with its earlier jurisprudence in cases 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 interpreted to include conditions necessary for living with human dignity. By extending this doctrine to menstrual health, the Court has effectively constitutionalised access to menstrual hygiene products and facilities.
The judgment also situates menstrual hygiene within the continuum of reproductive and sexual health rights, recognising the State’s obligation to disseminate education and information essential for informed decision-making and bodily autonomy. The Court noted that the denial of such access perpetuates absenteeism, educational disadvantage, and social exclusion, particularly among girls from marginalised and economically weaker backgrounds.
Emphasising the transformative potential of constitutional adjudication, the Bench observed that the ruling is intended to operate beyond the courtroom, serving as a normative guide for educational institutions, policymakers, teachers, parents, and society at large. The decision seeks to dismantle entrenched social taboos and structural neglect that have historically rendered menstruation a source of stigma and disadvantage.
The post Supreme Court terms menstrual health essential component of Right to Life under Article 21 appeared first on India Legal.