Menstrual Poverty

A landmark ruling Recognising access to menstrual hygiene as an essential part of the right to life and personal liberty.

“A period should end a sentence, not a girl’s education.”

Menstrual poverty means not having enough menstrual hygiene items, sanitary facilities and clean water, and being able to throw away menstrual items in a timely way to be able to manage one’s menstruation with dignity. Adolescent female students experience menstrual disadvantage the most, along with the stigma of menstruation and lack of open and social discourse which limits access to policy discussions to address the effects menstrual poverty has on the daily lives of girls and women (for example, education and health care) and hinders their ability to participate in public life. For many adolescent girls, the absence of toilets, sanitary products or privacy while menstruating means that they miss days of school, creating barriers to their long-term educational and economic success as compared to boys or others who can afford to purchase sanitary products. In the case of Dr Jaya Thakur v Union of India (2026) the Supreme Court held that the right to menstrual hygiene is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Protection of Life and Personal Liberty. The Court stated that menstrual health is a component of the right to life and personal liberty. Menstrual health is critical to the dignity, equality, autonomy and right to education of girls. The Court noted that the absence of menstrual hygiene infrastructure will limit a girl’s access to education and will create barriers to equitable opportunity and called for increased investment by the government in order to further advance equality.

Facts of the Case and the Issue before the Court

A public interest litigation case was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India that requested nationwide guidelines for menstrual hygiene management in educational institutions has been adjudicated as Dr Jaya Thakur v Union of India.  The Petitioner’s basis for filing the petition was that the lack of adequate menstrual hygiene infrastructure in educational institutions creates structural barriers for young women, violates their fundamental rights, and would result in a violation of their human dignity. The Petitioner asked for the Court’s Order to provide for the provision of sanitary products, separate toilets for young women, appropriate sanitation facilities for young women, and awareness programs in all schools funded by the State or Private Government Funded.[1]

At the centre of the Petition was the acknowledgement that menstruation is a natural biological occurrence that starts at puberty (menarche) between the ages of 8-15 years old, and continues to occur regularly throughout a young woman’s life.[2] Although menstruation is a natural occurrence experienced by all women everywhere, it has been historically shrouded with stigma and silence by society in India. The Supreme Court found that socio cultural taboos and limitations regarding menstruation and the associated practices surrounding menstruation led to difficulty for women in accessing sanitary products and proper sanitation facilities.[3] This silence has resulted in women being marginalised in public policy and infrastructure development related to menstrual health.[4]

According to the petition, menstrual hygiene management should be viewed as an entire system including both the provision of sanitary products as well as providing adequate sanitary systems (water/sanitation/hygiene) if females are going to have clean and safe menstrual experiences. The Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation defines menstrual hygiene management as women’s/girls’ ability to manage their periods in a safe/dignified way using proper materials, clean water, appropriate private places to wash/bathe and safe disposal methods.[5] These requirements are part of the wider framework of water, sanitation and hygiene facilities, which include access to clean water, gender segregated washrooms and handwashing facilities.[6] The World Health Organization similarly defines menstrual hygiene management as the use of clean menstrual materials that can be changed in privacy as often as necessary, with access to soap and water and safe disposal facilities.[7]

The petitioner relied on empirical data to demonstrate the scale of menstrual poverty in India from the National Family Health Survey data showed that showed although the percentage of women aged fifteen to twenty four years old using hygienic menstrual methods had increased significantly, nearly one fourth of women in this age group still lacked access to adequate menstrual hygiene support.[8] This gap reflects the continuity of menstrual poverty and the persistent lack of access to essential menstrual hygiene infrastructure for countless girls and women across the country.

The petition also highlighted the impact of insufficient menstrual hygiene infrastructure on education and the Court noted that the deficiency of toilets, sanitary products and disposal mechanisms leads to absenteeism among adolescent girls.[9] Research has shown that girls commonly miss out on school during menstruation due to lack of sanitation facilities, privacy and menstrual products.[10] Over the period of time, the repeated absenteeism influences academics and eventually leads to dropping out.[11] The Court held and acknowledged that the hindering of primary and secondary education has significant and long term consequences for development and economic participation.[12]

The inadequate menstrual hygiene facilities were not only presented as a public health issue but as an important constitutional issue that impacted several aspects of countless women and children’s lives such as the right to education, dignity and equality. The Court observed and held that these barriers such as the absence and inadequacy of toilets, to menstrual absorbents and to safe disposal mechanisms obstruct the effective enjoyment of the right to education.[13] These obstacles disproportionately impact adolescent girls and undermine their ability to participate equally in educational opportunities.

The petition also helps draw attention to the larger constitutional framework that governs the right to education and equality which is recognised as a fundamental human right and an fundamental element of dignity.[14] The Court noted and held that the exercise of the right to education involves the elimination of barriers that prevent its enjoyment.[15] In this case this means menstrual hygiene barriers that were identified as significant impediments to educational access and equality of opportunity.

The fundamental constitutional issue before the Court was whether the inaccessibility of gender segregated toilets and menstrual hygiene infrastructure could be held and can be considered a intrusion of fundamental rights under the Constitution.[16] In particular, the Court reviewed whether the lack of menstrual hygiene management measures violated the right to equality under Article 14, the right to dignity and life under Article 21, and the right to free and compulsory education under Article 21A of the Constitution of India.¹⁷[17]

The case therefore presented the Court with a fundamental question that whether menstrual health could be considered as a vital element of the right to life, dignity and education and the resolution of this question required the Court to examine menstrual hygiene not as a welfare concern but as a matter of constitutional rights and the State responsibility.

The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court interpreted the petition through an expansive understanding of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty and the Supreme Courts interpretation over the years has held that the right to life does not only safeguard physical survival but also includes the right to live with dignity, health and self respect.[18] In the case of Dr Jaya Thakur v Union of India, the Court applied this reasoning to menstrual health and recognised that the capability to manage menstruation securely and with dignity is an essential part of dignified living.

A fundamental pillar of the Court’s reasoning was the acknowledgement that bodily autonomy can not be exercised without access to basic menstrual hygiene infrastructure and considering the factual record before it, the Court recognised that the unavailability of toilets, water, menstrual products and safe disposal facilities exposes girls to stigma, humiliation and health risks. The Court stressed upon the fact that autonomy and dignity are inseparable from material conditions that allow individuals to exercise their rights in practice.[19] The ignorance of such conditions, specifically in educational spaces where menstruating girls are at a fundamental disadvantage when compared to their male counterparts.

The Court emphasized upon and gave particular consideration to the correlation between menstrual hygiene and the right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution.[20] Education has long been recognised as a fundamental and a basic right that allows individuals to achieve other fundamental freedoms and building on this principle, the Court held that the realization of the right to education entails the elimination of such barriers that obstruct attendance and participation of students. The absence of menstrual hygiene management measures were identified as key impediments to the educational involvement of adolescent girls.[21]

In reaching a conclusion, the Court depended upon former constitutional precedents for it’s reasoning that interlink dignity and education for instance in the case of  Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India, where the Court noted that the right to live with dignity under Article 21 draws basis from the Directive Principles of State Policy and includes access to educational facilities.[22] Likewise, in the case of  Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka, the Court had held that the right to education is a key part of the extensive framework of the right to life and human dignity.[23] By referencing prior precedents, the Court held menstrual hygiene within an existing constitutional ambit that considers education as essential to dignity and social participation of individuals.

The Court further acknowledged that menstrual poverty is created due to structural inequality by restricting girls’ participation in education and public life due to the absence of menstrual hygiene infrastructure resulting in absenteeism and dropout, which in turn limits long term social and economic opportunities. The Court observed that menstrual poverty obstructs menstruating girls from exercising their right to education with dignity that is equal to that of their male counterparts or students who can afford sanitary products,[24] highlighting the gendered nature of the issue and the requirement for targeted constitutional protection.

The judgment also depends on on Article 15(3) of the Constitution, which enables the State to make special provisions for women and children.[25] According to the court’s interpretation of this provision it is an endorsement for the concept of substantive equality. Substantive equality acknowledges that identical treatment may not lead to equal results. When dealing with menstrual hygiene, the court decided that it is necessary to implement some measures that would specifically address the biological and social realities of women and girls. Subsequently, by recognizing menstrual hygiene as a fundamental right, it becomes part of the larger constitutional mandate for the promotion of gender justice.

Furthermore, the Court also linked menstrual hygiene to the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.[26] Access to sanitation facilities and menstrual products is essential for girls’ ability to participate equally in education and public life. A lack of menstrual hygiene management measures impedes equal opportunity and participation for girls, as they cannot participate equally without access. The Court found that to fulfil the constitutional obligation of equality, structural barriers must be removed that prevent or disproportionately impact women and girls’ equal participation.

Public health considerations also played an important role in the Court’s reasoning as the Court invoked Article 47 of the Constitution, which directs the State to improve public health as a primary duty.[27] Menstrual hygiene is now understood to be a key public health problem that can have serious effects on both reproductive health and overall well-being. The Court upheld the connection between menstrual hygiene and public health by affirming that it is the responsibility of the State to provide access to adequate sanitation and menstrual hygiene infrastructure.

International human rights law further explained the Court’s reasoning as they referred to the recognition of education as a fundamental human right under Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights.[28] The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was also cited to highlight the responsibility and obligation of the States to prevent discrimination in education and decrease female dropout rates.[29] These international obligations reinforced the constitutional argument that menstrual hygiene is integral to dignity and equality.

In all consideration, the Court concluded that menstrual health forms an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 and the right to free and compulsory education under Article 21A. [30]According to the Court; there exists a responsibility imposed upon an individual member of the State which would include providing access to education in a manner conducive to dignity. This analysis and determination has created a legal precedent that recognises menstrual hygiene as part of one’s constitutional entitlement and therefore a responsibility that the State should have in fulfilling.

Conclusion

In establishing the importance of protecting women and girls’ menstruation, the Supreme Court of India has created a new precedent regarding menstrual hygiene and dignity, equality, and education as a constitutional right. The Court determined that menstrual health, like the right to life and personal liberty, must be considered a public issue under the Constitution due to the harm done to an individual’s dignity when someone becomes excluded from her society due to being a menstruator. The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that Article 21 protects not only the survival of individuals but also the rights required for a meaningful and dignified life.

Bibliography

Table of Cases

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161
Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka (1992) 3 SCC 666

Legislation

Constitution of India arts 14, 15(3), 21, 21A, 32, 47

International Instruments

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 1979
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

Journal Articles and Reports

Patavegar BN and others, ‘A Study of School Absenteeism During Menstruation Amongst Adolescent Schoolgirls in An Urban Area of North India’ (2024) 15 National Journal of Community Medicine 741

Chothe V and Khubchandani J and others, ‘Students’ Perceptions and Doubts About Menstruation in Developing Countries: A Case Study From India’ (2014) 15 Health Promotion Practice 319

Online Articles

Keswani S, ‘Menstrual Health and Right to Life: A Progressive Step by the Supreme Court’ (Lawctopus, 5 February 2026)

Supreme Court Observer, ‘Menstrual Health as a Facet of Right to Life: Dr Jaya Thakur v Government of India’ (2026)

Verma BK, ‘Menstrual Health And Hygiene Are Fundamental Rights: A New Dimension Of Article 21’ (LiveLaw, 4 February 2026)

The Hindu, ‘A full stop: On the top court, the right to menstrual health and hygiene’ (3 February 2026)

[1] Constitution of India art 32.

[2] Supreme Court Observer, ‘Menstrual Health as a Facet of Right to Life: Dr Jaya Thakur v Government of India’ (2026).

[3] Ibid.

[4] ibid.

[5] ibid.

[6] ibid.

[7] ibid.

[8] The Hindu, ‘A full stop: On the top court, the right to menstrual health and hygiene’ (3 February 2026).

[9] Supreme Court Observer (n 2).

[10] B N Patavegar and others, ‘A Study of School Absenteeism During Menstruation Amongst Adolescent Schoolgirls in An Urban Area of North India’ (2024) 15 National Journal of Community Medicine 741.

[11] ibid.

[12] Supreme Court Observer (n 2).

[13] ibid.

[14] Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 art 26; International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights 1966 art 13; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 1979 art 10.

[15] Supreme Court Observer (n 2).

[16] ibid.

[17] Constitution of India arts 14, 21 and 21A

[18] Constitution of India art 21.

[19] The Hindu, ‘A full stop: On the top court, the right to menstrual health and hygiene’ (3 February 2026).

[20] Constitution of India art 21A.

[21] Supreme Court Observer, ‘Menstrual Health as a Facet of Right to Life: Dr Jaya Thakur v Government of India’ (2026).

[22] Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161.

[23] Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka (1992) 3 SCC 666.

[24] Supreme Court Observer (n 4).

[25] Constitution of India art 15(3).

[26] Constitution of India art 14.

[27] Constitution of India art 47.

[28] Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 art 26; International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights 1966 art 13.

[29] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 1979 art 10.

[30] Supreme Court Observer (n 4).