SC says menstrual well being a basic proper, mandates free sanitary pads

The Supreme Court docket on Friday (January 30, 2026) declared that the appropriate to menstrual well being and entry to menstrual hygiene administration (MHM) measures in academic establishments is a part of the elemental proper to life and dignity beneath Article 21 of the Structure.

“Dignity can’t be diminished to an summary ultimate; it should discover expression in situations that allow people to stay with out humiliation, exclusion, or avoidable struggling. For menstruating lady youngsters, the inaccessibility of MHM measures topics them to stigma, stereotyping, and humiliation,” a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan noticed in a judgment.

Additionally Learn | Menstrual well being is a public well being subject

The absence of protected and hygienic menstrual administration measures undermined dignified existence by compelling adolescent college students to both resort to absenteeism or undertake unsafe practices.

“Each violate the bodily autonomy of menstruating lady youngsters… Menstrual poverty hinders menstruating ladies from exercising their proper to schooling with dignity equal to that of their male counterparts, or college students who can afford sanitary merchandise. There isn’t any gainsaying that impairment of major or secondary schooling has grave and lasting penalties, not just for particular person growth but in addition for long-term social and financial participation,” the Supreme Court docket defined.

The judgment was primarily based on a writ petition filed by Dr. Jaya Thakur highlighting the shortage of MHM measures in colleges throughout the nation, resulting in absenteeism and, even worse, dropping out of college. The court docket held that lack of MHM measures in colleges violate the appropriate to privateness and bodily autonomy of scholars.

“A woman youngster’s expectation to handle her menstruation in privateness with dignity is reliable. In such circumstances, the shortage of assets can’t be permitted to control her autonomy over her personal physique,” the court docket famous. It stated MHM was not restricted to historically understood sanitation, however included bodily autonomy and decisional freedom.

“The denial of enough services, applicable sanitary merchandise or privateness successfully compels a lady youngster to handle her physique in a way dictated by circumstance somewhat than selection. Autonomy may be meaningfully exercised solely when lady youngsters have entry to purposeful bogs, enough menstrual merchandise, availability of water, and hygienic mechanisms for disposal,” the court docket noticed.

The court docket stated the state can not pressure a toddler to decide on between dignity and her schooling. Such a selection was neither simply nor equitable. The failure to supply sanitary napkins created a gender-specific barrier that impedes attendance, and continuity in schooling, thereby defeating the substantive assure of free and obligatory schooling.

In a separate part on the function of ‘males in menstruation’, the apex court docket stated it was essential to coach and sensitise male academics and college students in regards to the “organic actuality of menstruation” in an effort to keep away from any kind of harassment or invasive questioning of a menstruating pupil at school.

Issuing a collection of instructions, the Supreme Court docket ordered States and Union Territories to make sure that each faculty, whether or not government-run or privately managed, in each city and rural areas, are supplied with purposeful, gender-segregated bogs. These colleges should make oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins readily accessible to college students, ideally inside the bathroom premises, by way of sanitary serviette merchandising machines. Colleges should set up ‘MHM corners’ geared up with, together with however not restricted to, spare innerwear, spare uniforms, disposable baggage and different vital supplies to deal with menstruation-related exigencies.

The court docket held that the State involved can be held accountable if government-run colleges didn’t adjust to Part 19 (norms and requirements for colleges, together with separate washrooms for girls and boys and barrier-free entry) of the Proper to Training (RTE) Act. Equally, non-public colleges can be de-recognised and face penalties if they didn’t adjust to comparable norms prescribed beneath the RTE Act.