The Supreme Court has expressed strong disquiet over the manner in which several States and Union Territories have reported compliance with its directions aimed at ensuring adequate menstrual hygiene facilities for school-going girls, observing that in several instances the exercise appeared to have been reduced to a bureaucratic formality.
A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan found that several compliance reports failed to provide a meaningful account of the actual conditions prevailing in schools. The Court noted that some States had relied upon statistics and simple “yes” or “no” responses even where the nature of the information sought required a substantive and school-level assessment.
The observations form part of the Supreme Court’s continuing monitoring in Dr Jaya Thakur v. Government of India & Ors., following its January 2026 judgment recognising menstrual health as an integral component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In that judgment, the Court had directed nationwide implementation of the Union Government’s Menstrual Hygiene Policy and prescribed a set of minimum facilities to be made available in schools. These included functional gender-segregated toilets with running water, facilities accessible to children with disabilities, free sanitary napkins, menstrual hygiene management corners, covered disposal bins and appropriate mechanisms for the safe disposal of menstrual waste.
The Court has since been supervising the implementation of these directions. On May 25, it had sought updated compliance reports from the States and Union Territories, following which the Union Government placed a consolidated affidavit before the Bench on August 31.
Upon scrutinising the material, the Court acknowledged that steps had been taken in some jurisdictions but found discrepancies between claims of complete compliance and the underlying data furnished by the authorities.
In certain cases, States reported full compliance despite their own figures indicating that some schools continued to lack accessible or gender-segregated toilets, adequate hand-washing facilities, sanitary-napkin vending arrangements or proper menstrual-waste disposal systems. The Court also took note of instances where the information supplied was inadequate or unclear.
The Bench particularly emphasised the distinction between issuing a governmental policy or administrative circular and ensuring that the prescribed facilities actually reach the intended beneficiaries.
The Court observed that the mere existence of a policy cannot be treated as equivalent to its effective implementation at the school level. The emphasis, therefore, was placed on assessing the practical availability of menstrual-health infrastructure to students rather than merely documenting administrative action taken by State authorities.
To obtain an objective assessment of ground realities, the Supreme Court has directed District Education Officers to constitute teams comprising teachers for conducting surprise inspections of schools falling within their respective jurisdictions.
The inspection teams have been tasked with verifying the availability and functionality of toilets and washing facilities, menstrual products, menstrual hygiene management corners and waste-disposal arrangements. They are also required to examine whether schools are undertaking appropriate menstrual-health awareness measures.
The Court has further directed the States and Union Territories to place on record the findings of inspections already undertaken by District Education Officers, together with anonymous feedback obtained from students.
Importantly, the Bench has altered the focus of future compliance reporting. Instead of merely setting out measures already completed, the authorities have been directed to identify the deficiencies that continue to persist.
The States and Union Territories must accordingly disclose the number of schools where functional gender-segregated toilets, usable water connections, accessibility and privacy requirements remain unmet. They have also been asked to specify the reasons for the deficiencies and indicate the timeframe required for rectification.
The Court has separately sought details concerning the availability of cleaners responsible for maintaining school sanitation facilities. It noted that while some States had not appointed dedicated cleaners, certain others had referred to internal arrangements without furnishing sufficient particulars.
The continuing judicial scrutiny stems from the Supreme Court’s recognition that menstrual hygiene cannot be treated merely as a matter of public health policy. In its January ruling, the Court linked menstrual-health facilities with constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality and effective access to education, holding that the absence of such basic facilities can operate as a structural barrier to girls’ continued education.
The latest directions consequently shift the compliance exercise from paper-based reporting to verification on the ground, requiring State authorities to demonstrate not merely that policies have been framed, but that the constitutional and statutory entitlements recognised by the Court are being translated into functional facilities for students.
The post Supreme Court pulls up states over lax compliance with menstrual hygiene directions in schools appeared first on India Legal.