Shaleen Mahajan
“Summum jus, summa injuria” which means the strictest application of law can sometimes result in the greatest injustice. This paradox lies at the heart of the debate on menstrual leave in India. Should it be made mandatory for all working women? At first glance, the idea appears rooted in dignity and fairness. Yet, a closer examination reveals that a uniform, compulsory policy may create more challenges than it seeks to resolve.
Menstrual health is undeniably a matter of dignity and well-being. For many women, menstruation involves severe medical conditions such as endometriosis or acute dysmenorrhea, leading to intense pain, fatigue, and even temporary incapacity. In such cases, rest is not a matter of convenience but necessity. Denying support in these situations raises legitimate concerns about the right to live with dignity.
However, the key issue is not whether menstrual leave should exist, but whether it should be imposed uniformly across all workplaces. A mandatory framework, though well-intentioned, risks becoming a double-edged sword.
One of the most significant concerns is its potential impact on women’s employment. In competitive labour markets driven by efficiency and cost considerations, a legally mandated monthly leave may be perceived as an added burden. This perception whether explicit or subtle can influence hiring decisions. Employers may begin to prefer male candidates to avoid anticipated disruptions, leading to what economists describe as “statistical discrimination.” A policy aimed at empowerment could, paradoxically, reduce women’s workforce participation.
Closely linked to this is the risk of reinforcing gender stereotypes. Institutionalising menstrual leave as a universal requirement may unintentionally signal that women are less reliable or consistently available. Such assumptions can affect not just hiring, but also promotions, leadership opportunities, and task allocation. True equality lies not in over-protection, but in ensuring that support does not translate into systemic disadvantage.
Practical challenges further complicate the issue. Menstrual experiences vary widely. A fixed leave policy may either be misused or, if tied to medical verification, intrude upon privacy and dignity. Questions around duration also remain unresolved.What is sufficient for one may be inadequate for another. In sectors like healthcare, administration, and emergency services, recurring absences can disrupt essential functions, particularly for smaller organisations with limited staff.
The realities of India’s workforce make the issue even more complex. A large proportion of women work in the informal sector, where the concept of paid leave is often non-existent. For domestic workers, agricultural labourers, and daily wage earners, not working means not earning. Similarly, homemakers continue to shoulder physically demanding responsibilities regardless of their health. A mandatory policy in the formal sector would therefore benefit only a limited section, widening the gap between privileged and marginalised women.
Global experience also shows that legal provisions alone do not ensure utilisation. In several countries where menstrual leave exists, many women hesitate to avail it due to stigma or fear of being perceived as less committed. This highlights that workplace culture, not just law, determines the effectiveness of such policies.
Another often overlooked dimension is that women’s capabilities are not uniform, and neither is their response to pain. Across professions, there are countless examples of women performing under physically demanding conditions, even during menstruation. From soldiers deployed in extreme terrains, to surgeons handling critical operations, to athletes competing on global stages, women often continue despite discomfort that is very real.
In high-performance sports, for instance, athletes representing their country do not have the option to pause based on biological cycles. Competitors such as Simone Biles, Mary Kom, and PV Sindhu operate in environments where physical endurance, discipline, and mental resilience are paramount. It is not that they do not experience pain; rather, in such moments, performance, responsibility, and commitment often take precedence. Their example highlights an important truth that for many women, menstrual discomfort becomes secondary because circumstances demand resilience.This is not to romanticise suffering or suggest that all women should be expected to endure pain. Rather, it underlines the diversity of experience. While some may require rest due to severe medical conditions, others may choose to continue their work without interruption. A uniform, mandatory leave policy fails to account for this spectrum.
By assuming incapacity as a general rule, such a policy risks reinforcing the very stereotype it seeks to dismantle that women are periodically less capable. A law built on uniform assumptions cannot do justice to diverse realities. Menstrual experiences differ in intensity, frequency, and impact, making a rigid, universal mandate both impractical and potentially counterproductive. The answer, therefore, lies not in compulsion but in calibrated flexibility.
Given these complexities, a rigid, one-size-fits-all mandate appears neither practical nor equitable. A more balanced approach would be to adopt flexible, need-based solutions. Women facing medically significant conditions should have access to appropriate leave and healthcare support. At the same time, workplaces can offer flexible arrangements such as remote work, adjustable schedules, and inclusive sick leave policies that do not single out menstruation.
A reasonable and prudent approach would be to embed menstrual concerns within broader, gender-neutral workplace protections ensuring access to paid sick leave, flexible work arrangements, and medical support without isolating or stigmatizing women. Where genuine medical need exists, the law must provide accommodation; where it does not, it must preserve choice.
Such an approach aligns with substantive equality. It recognizes differences without institutionalizing them in a way that creates disadvantage. It also respects individual autonomy, allowing women to decide what their bodies require, rather than imposing uniform assumptions.
The goal should be to create an environment where women are neither forced to work through severe discomfort nor compelled to take leave unnecessarily. Policies must enable participation, not restrict it.
The menstrual leave debate in India does not call for extreme positions. It requires nuance. A policy that aims to empower must not unintentionally exclude. The answer lies not in compulsion, but in choice supported by sensitivity, flexibility, and a deeper understanding of women’s diverse realities.
(The writer is a Final Year Law student of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar)
