Bleeding Unfair: Period Tax, Period Poverty, and the Struggle for Menstrual Justice in Pakistan

Adeena Hafsah Mirza

Menstrual hygiene products are a health necessity, yet in Pakistan they remain financially inaccessible for many women and girls due to heavy taxation and broader socioeconomic barriers. This inaccessibility contributes to period poverty, which in turn forces many girls to skip school and causes absenteeism among women in the workforce, thereby transforming menstrual inequity into a socio-economic injustice rather than a mere health concern. The UN Women defines “period poverty” as “..the inability to afford and access menstrual products, sanitation and hygiene facilities and education and awareness to manage menstrual health.” Despite growing recognition of menstrual equity worldwide, Pakistan continues to treat sanitary products as luxury items under its taxation regime. This article argues that such taxation exacerbates period poverty, discriminates against women in violation of constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity, and stands in conflict with Pakistan’s obligations under international human rights treaties such as CEDAW. Drawing on constitutional provisions, emerging case law, and comparative international practice, the article evaluates the legal, social, and policy dimensions of the period tax and proposes reforms toward menstrual equity.

Introduction

 Women and girls, who constitute nearly half of Pakistan’s population (49.3%, according to the World Bank), face significant strife when it comes to the accessibility of menstrual hygiene products – a phenomenon known as “period poverty”. Health implications aside, this pervasive form of gender inequality comes with its own set of social and economic consequences: school and workplace absenteeism. Furthermore, women and girls are left with no choice but to rely on unsafe alternatives that compromise their dignity and wellbeing.

The taxation of menstrual hygiene products significantly exacerbates this issue. In Pakistan, sanity napkins and all other related items are subject to sales tax – as though they were luxury goods. Recently, a petition has been filed in the Lahore High Court, challenging this tax and arguing that it infringes the constitutional rights to dignity (Article 14) and equality (Article 25). Internationally, many jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, Kenya and Canada have abolished the “tampon tax” entirely, recognizing its discriminatory impact.

This article argues that Pakistan’s taxation of period products constitutes gender-based discrimination in violation of constitutional guarantees of equality (Article 14 and Article 25), and also conflicts with Pakistan’s obligations under international human rights law, particularly the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The discussion proceeds in four parts: first, by outlining the legal framework that governs the taxation of menstrual products; second, by examining judicial interpretations and emerging case law; third, by critically analyzing the constitutional and human rights dimensions of the issue, with reference to comparative international practice; and fourth, by reviewing recent developments in litigation and advocacy. The article concludes with recommendations for reform to advance menstrual equity and gender justice in Pakistan.

Legal Framework

To better understand the constitutional implications of Pakistan’s period tax, we must first look towards and examine the sales tax regime under which menstrual hygiene products are classified, and then to situate this framework within the guarantees provided by the Constitution of 1973.

The Sales Tax Regime

 Research shows that for Pakistan the “General GST rate remains at 18%, although some reduced rates (like 5%) on select essential goods may rise to 10”. While certain essential items–foodstuffs and medicine– are exempt from the general GST or are subject to lower rates, menstrual hygiene products are not included in this category. Instead, they are taxed as ordinary consumer goods and taxed at the standard rate. Despite menstrual products being indispensable to women’s health and overall wellbeing, this classification renders them a “non-essential, luxury good”. By neglecting to note that these products are necessities tied to biological needs, this tax framework imposes a superfluous economic burden on women and girls.

Constitutional Guarantees

 Several constitutional provisions might be infringed if menstrual hygiene products would continue to be taxed as ordinary, non-essential consumer goods.

Article 9 (Security of person/Right to life): This provision of the constitution was challenged in the case of Shehla Zia vs. WAPDA PLD 1994 Supreme Court 693, where the courts interpreted the right to life broadly, including the conditions under which an individual was to live their life. Contextually, the “period tax” can absolutely be said to violate Article 9 of the Constitution.

Article 14 (Dignity of man): The constitution explicitly states that the “dignity of man…shall be inviolable”. Denying affordable menstrual products forces women and girls to make use of rags and cloth as unsafe alternatives, severely undermining personal dignity and exposing them to health risks.

Article 25 (Equality of citizens): The constitution here states that “25. (1) All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law. (2) There shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex 1*” Taxing products that are only needed by women and girls falls under the ambit of gender discrimination, albeit indirect. As men do not bear an equivalent cost for a biological need, this unequal fiscal burden contravenes Article 25 of the Constitution.

Article 38 (Promotion of social and economic well being of the people): This is intended as a directive measure, however, Article 38 obliges the State to “(a) secure the well-being of the people, irrespective of sex…by raising their standard of living..” and “(d) provide basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing, housing, education and medical relief, for all such citizens, irrespective of sex…” Menstrual hygiene products are clearly basic necessities and therefore, by taxing them, the State is neglecting its constitutional directive to advance social and economic justice.

Misclassification of menstrual products

 The misclassification of menstrual hygiene products as non-essential, taxable goods is inconsistent with Pakistan’s constitutional framework. In stark contrast, jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, India and Canada have explicitly recognized menstrual products as non essentials by removing or reducing taxes. Pakistan, thus far, shows a continued reluctance to do so and therefore reflects a blatant disregard for its constitutional commitments to social justice, dignity and equality.

Judicial Interpretation

 Although there has been no reported judgement which has directly addressed period poverty in Pakistan, existing constitutional jurisprudence could offer important guidance.  By relying on these cases, we can determine the extent to which the constitutional rights set out above are being implicated by the taxation of menstrual hygiene products.

Fundamental Rights Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has consistently adopted a purposive, meaning broad, approach to interpreting fundamental rights. Such is evident in the case of Shehla Zia v WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693) where the courts interpreted Article 9 (Right to life) to include the protection of health. This expansive reading of Article 9 provides us with a foundation on which to recognize access to menstrual products as part of the right to life, given that the alternative being unsafe rags and cloth, would compromise health. The Court’s readiness to interpret this right dynamically may suggest that such taxation policies which deny women the access to basic health necessities such as menstrual hygiene products may be unconstitutional.

Lahore High Court Petition

Recently, a petition was filed in the Lahore High Court which challenged the imposition of sales tax on menstrual hygiene products by petitioner Mahnoor Omer. The petitioner argued that such a tax violates Articles 9,14 25 and 38 of the Constitution. However, the case remains pending. Regardless, this is the first direct judicial challenge to Pakistan’s period tax. The outcome will determine whether the Pakistani courts are willing to extend constitutional protections to menstrual equity.

Comparative Judicial Trends

The discriminatory nature of taxing menstrual hygiene products has been recognized by courts in several other jurisdictions. Some examples are India, which ceded to public pressure and advocacy which led to it eliminating GST on menstrual products. Moreover, in August 2022 in Scotland, a law came into effect that made menstrual hygiene products freely available. This shows that Pakistani courts are not facing an anomaly, but rather the fight for menstrual justice is being fought in jurisdictions worldwide and that inaccessibility to basic necessities such as pads and tampons is in fact a matter of constitutional inequality.

Conclusion

The pending Lahore High Court petition presents itself as the perfect opportunity for Pakistan’s judiciary to quash (or reduce) the period tax. As evident in Shehla Zia, the courts are willing to interpret fundamental rights purposively. Moreover, we have already deduced that period tax infringes Article 9 (right to life) of the Constitution. Following this trend, it would not be out-of-reach to assume that the Court may affirm that in order to validate the dignity, equality and health of women and girls across Pakistan, period products must be treated as basic necessities and not luxury goods, and this includes striking down the sales tax that deepens the wound of gender inequity.

Critical Analysis

As mentioned above, the tax on menstrual hygiene products in Pakistan makes itself known as a contributor to consequential social, policy and legal concerns. This tax serves as a method of indirect discrimination, where it prima facie appears to apply similarly on all consumer goods. However, upon further inspection, it is discernable that the regime fiscally disadvantages women by taxing goods that are exclusively used by women and girls. In doing so, socio-economic inequities are deepened. This section will critically analyze three facets: legal loopholes, socio-economic impact and comparative international development.

Legal loopholes

The legal issue at play here is the tax levied on consumer goods i.e. period products, classifying them as ‘taxable goods’ under the General Sales Tax framework. It is important to note that exemptions are granted for foodstuffs and medication (essentials), menstrual products are excluded from this list. This classification is problematic for a multitude of reasons:

• Indirect discrimination: As discussed above, the tax law seems to be facially neutral, however, women and girls are made to unfairly shoulder this burden. This burden can therefore be said to be “gender-specific” and can thus contribute to “indirect, sex-based discrimination” under Article 25 of the Constitution.
• Inconsistency with directive principles: We have already established that menstrual hygiene products are basic necessities that need to be made freely accessible to safeguard the dignity and health of women and girls throughout Pakistan. Article 38 of the Constitution provides directive measures to the State to “provide the basic necessities of life”. The period tax is hindering this directive from being met.
• Absence of policy justification: The share of sanitary products in the total sales tax collection is marginal, so the proportionality of maintaining this tax is brought into question.

Socio-economic implications

The socio-economics impacts of limited accessibility to menstrual hygiene products has been documented by several Empirical studies. A WaterAid Pakistan study (2016) reported that 82 per cent of girls surveyed relied on cloth while only 15 per cent used sanitary pads. Cost was identified as a primary barrier to usage. This strengthens the argument that affordability concerns are worsened by the sales tax, and lends credence to the advocates calling for its abolition.

Moreover, the consequences extend into education and employment. UNESCO and UNICEF studies globally have documented that girls who live in low-middle income countries frequently miss school due to a lack of access to sanitary products. Similarly, school and workplace absenteeism due to period poverty is an observed trend throughout Pakistan, as gathered by media reports and NGO surveys.

Reliance on unsafe alternatives such as rags and cloth as mentioned above prove to be rather perilous to health by increasing the risks of reproductive tract infections in women and girls who resort to such measures. When safe products such as pads and tampons are made less affordable due to the sales tax, these risks increase. This can be tied back to Article 9 of the Constitution, which we established that the courts of Pakistan interpret to include the right to health.

Comparative International Practice

To further contextualize the urgency of the matter at hand, we look towards the trend experienced by many jurisdictions which are reclassifying menstrual products as essentials for tax purposes.

• Canada: Canada removed the Goods and Services Tax on tampons, pads, and menstrual cups in 2015 following a public petition and parliamentary debate.
• Kenya: Kenya was the first country to eliminate sales tax on sanitary pads in 2004 and has since introduced policies to distribute free pads in schools.

It is evident that by refusing to abolish the period tax, Pakistan is falling outside of the trend. The trend also evidences that fiscal policies pertaining to menstrual hygiene products are increasingly being recognized as matters concerning public health and equity rather than discretionary taxation.

Implications for Pakistan 

The period tax is thus far persistent in Pakistan, raising concerns on several fronts. First and foremost, it exposes the State to constitutional challenges under Article 9, 14, 25 and 38 of the Constitution in the legal sphere. Socially, it leads to reduced school attendance and work absenteeism. Moreover, looking at the issue through an economic lense, we can surely see that the revenue that the tax is generating is not worth the loss faced by reduced performance at the workplace and attainment of education for women and girls.

Recent Developments 

Public discourse, civil society advocacy and litigation have fueled the debate regarding taxation of menstrual products, and it has become extremely relevant in recent years.

Litigation 

The most recent and thereby the most significant legal development is the petition filed by activist Mahnoor Omer in the Lahore High Court which constitutionally challenges the period tax using Articles 9, 14, 25, and 38 of the Constitution. The Court has thereafter issued notices to the Federal Government, requiring it to respond to the claimants. This case is monumental as it represents the first judicial challenge faced by Pakistan concerning its fiscal policy on menstrual products. The eventual outcome would serve as precedent for recognition of menstrual equity as a constitutional matter.

Civil Society Advocacy 

Civil society organizations have begun to highlight period poverty as a structural issue. Advocacy groups and NGOs have urged the government to reclassify menstrual products as essentials and to provide them free of cost in public schools and workplaces. The Lahore High Court petition has caught traction in the media, drawing national attention to the discriminatory impact of the period tax.

Government response and Policy 

There has been a lack of intention to abolish the period tax as far as the Federal Government is concerned. However, there have been limited discussions in parliamentary committees about reducing GST on raw materials for local sanitary napkin production. Provincial networks, such as in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, have also called for exemption of sanitary products from GST. These piecemeal measures suggest a growing awareness but fall short of comprehensive reform.

Public Discourse 

The conversation surrounding “period poverty” has permeated the mainstream space, with hashtags calling for menstrual equity. This cultural shift depicts an openness to change.

Conclusion  

However, until a concrete judicial decision is reached, the period tax remains a barrier to gender equality in Pakistan.

Suggestions and the Way forward 

Addressing period poverty in Pakistan requires a multifaceted approach combining legal reform, fiscal policy and public awareness. The immediate step would be to reclassify menstrual hygiene products as essentials exempt from the General Sales Tax. As mentioned above, the fiscal cost would be minimal compared to the social and constitutional benefits of improved menstrual equity.

The government should also subsidize local production of sanitary products to ensure affordability. Reducing taxes on raw materials could lower manufacturing costs and increase the availability of pads in urban and rural markets. Provincial governments, empowered under the 18th Amendment, could pioneer programs to provide free sanitary products in schools and public health facilities.

Moreover, broader menstrual health initiatives are equally as important. Period poverty is not just a taxation issue, but also one of stigma and awareness. National campaigns should normalize menstruation as a public health matter, and educational curricula should include menstrual health management. Partnerships with NGOs and international organitions could support pilot programmes for free sanitary products in schools, following models in Kenya and India.

Finally, the judiciary can play a role by recognising menstrual equity as a constitutional imperative. Courts could interpret Articles 14 and 25 to affirm that taxing menstrual products as luxuries undermines dignity and equality. Legislative and judicial reforms, backed by civil society advocacy, are essential to sustain momentum for change.

Together, these measures can transform menstrual health policy in Pakistan, moving from neglect to recognition and ensuring the country meets its constitutional and human rights obligations.

Conclusion 

The taxation of menstrual products in Pakistan is not a neutral fiscal measure but a policy that entrenches gender inequality and perpetuates period poverty. By treating sanitary products as taxable luxuries, the State disregards their essential role in safeguarding health, dignity, and equal participation in society. This practice undermines constitutional guarantees of equality under Article 25, dignity under Article 9, while also conflicting with Pakistan’s obligations under international human rights law.

Judicial interpretation, particularly in light of the pending Lahore High Court petition, presents an opportunity to affirm menstrual equity as a constitutional imperative. Yet, lasting reform requires legislative action and policy change to exempt menstrual products from tax, promote affordable access, and challenge stigma. Only by addressing both the economic and social barriers to menstrual health can Pakistan move towards genuine gender justice and fulfill its constitutional promise.

Bibliography

Cases

Shehla Zia v WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693

Legislation

Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, Article 9

Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, Article 14

Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, Article 25

Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, Article 38

Sales Tax Act 1990
Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act 2012

Secondary Sources (Books, Reports, Articles)

UN Women, ‘Period Poverty: Why Millions of Girls and Women Cannot Afford Their Periods’ (UNWomen,2023) https://www.unwomen.org/en/articles/explainer/period-poverty-why-millions-of-girls-and-women-cannot-afford-their-periods accessed 24 September 2025.

Ali SS, ‘Conceptualising Islamic Law, CEDAW and Women’s Human Rights in Pakistan’ (2000) 64 Netherlands International Law Review 197
UNESCO, Puberty Education & Menstrual Hygiene Management (UNESCO 2014)
UNICEF, Guidance on Menstrual Health and Hygiene (UNICEF 2019) https://www.unicef.org/media/91341/fileaccessed 24 September 2025
WaterAid, Is Menstrual Hygiene and Management an Issue for Adolescent School Girls? A Comparative Study of Four Schools in Different Settings of Pakistan (WaterAid Pakistan 2016) https://washmatters.wateraid.org/publications/is-menstrual-hygiene-and-management-an-issue-for-adolescent-school-girls accessed 24 September 2025
WHO, Adolescent Health and Menstrual Hygiene (WHO 2020)
World Bank, ‘Population, Female (% of Total Population) – Pakistan’ World Development Indicators (World Bank Group 2025) https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL.FE.ZS?locations=PK accessed 24 September 2025

Baptista D, ‘What is the tampon tax and which countries have axed it?’ Context News (1 September 2023) https://www.context.news/socioeconomic-inclusion/what-is-the-tampon-tax-and-which-countries-have-axed-it accessed 24 September 2025.

Websites / News Media

Malik Asad, ‘Tax on feminine hygiene products challenged in LHC’ Dawn (18 September 2025) https://www.dawn.com/news/1942802 accessed 24 September 2025
Images Staff, ‘An activist is taking the Pakistani government to court to declare period products tax-exempt essentials’ Dawn Images (19 September 2025) https://images.dawn.com/news/1194170/an-activist-is-taking-the-pakistani-government-to-court-to-declare-period-products-tax-exempt-essentials accessed 24 September 2025
Business Recorder, ‘Govt urged to reduce GST on raw material for sanitary napkins’ (14 June 2023) https://www.brecorder.com/news/40246331 accessed 24 September 2025
The News, ‘Call to exempt sanitary napkins from GST’ (4 November 2021) https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/903758accessed 24 September 2025