Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India

Full Title: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India[1]

Citation:  2026 INSC 97 | 2026 SCO.LR (2)[1][4]; WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1000 of 2022

Court: Supreme Court of India

Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Date of Judgement: 

Judgement delivered on 30 January 2026

Parties Involved:  

Petitioner: DR. JAYA THAKUR, a social worker who filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32[2] of the Constitution seeking recognition of menstrual health and seeking adequate Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM) facilities.

Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS., Including the Union of India, States and The Union Territories sought to implement policies to ensure essential facilities, support for female students in schools and further consequential directions are requested in the larger public interest.

Facts of the Case 

1. The Petitioner, Dr. Jaya Thakur approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, in the nature of Mandamus. filing for a Public Interest Litigation.
2. The Petitioner sought the Respondent, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS., Including the Union of India, States and The Union Territories’ recognition and directions regarding Menstrual Hygiene management (MHM).
3. The Plea included directions with respect to lack of free sanitary pads for girl students studying from Classes 6 to 12.
4. Moreover, the plea sought the need for separate toilet for females in all government aided and residential schools
5. The plea also sought the provision of cleaner in all Government, Aided and residential Schools in order to maintain clean toilets.
6. Lastly issue a writ or direction for a three-stage awareness program seeking, (i)The spreading of awareness regarding menstrual health and addressing taboos surrounding it; (ii) the provision of adequate sanitation infrastructure and availability of free or subsidized sanitary pads; (iii) ensure provision of safe disposal mechanism of menstrual waste; (iv) Lastly, pass any orders the Court may deem fit with regards to this case.
7. The court recognised Menstrual Poverty or Period poverty that defines the financial implications that burden women in use of menstrual hygiene products.
8. The problem identified were found to be two-fold: (i) absenteeism; (ii) dropouts from school due to lack of adequate menstrual hygiene management (MHM) in schools.[3]
9. The respondents stated on record a myriad of schemes and policies that were in existence and that addressed menstrual hygiene in schools by various Staes and The Union.
10. Multiple States respectively were found to have not filed for affidavits regarding the menstrual hygiene polices and schemes.

Issues Raised 

The issues raised before the court in this case were: 

1. Whether the absence of gender segregated toilets and lack of adequate access to menstrual absorbents amounts to a violation of the right to equality of adolescent girl students under Article 14 of the Constitution[4].
2. Whether the right to dignified menstrual health forms a part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21[5] of the Indian Constitution.
3. Whether the absence of separate toilets and menstrual absorbents infringes the constitutional guarantee of participation and equality of opportunity under Article 14.
4. Whether the lack of such facilities violates the right to education under Article 21A [6] of the Constitution and the statutory right to free and compulsory education under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.[7]

Arguments of the Parties:

The Petitioner:

1. The petitioner argued that the lack of access to adequate menstrual hygiene management (MHM) infrastructure and facilities amounted to the violation the fundamental rights of adolescent girls which is fundamental to dignity and bodily autonomy.
2. It was argued that the absence and inadequate access to free sanitary pads and availability of segregated toilets impacted girl students disproportionately and resulting in discrimination against girl students as compared to their male equivalents.
3. Menstrual poverty was argued to have led to increased number of absenteeism and dropouts in girl students.
4. It was argued by the plaintiff that the inaccessibility of sanitation facilities and MHM measures amounted to infringement of Articles 14, 21, and 21A of the Indian Constitution.
5. The petitioner also argued that although there was availability of schemes, polices and programmes addressing the issue, yet there was lack of implementation. Moreover, several States and Union Territories did not file affidavits of the same before Court.

Respondent:

1. Recognised the taboos, lack of awareness and socio-cultural restrictions that impacted the lack of MHM measures and infrastructure.
2. Highlighted on record the Menstrual Hygiene Policy for School Going Girls, approved by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare in place that regulated menstrual hygiene concerns.
3. The Union submitted undertaken policy initiatives and programmes including Jan Aushadhi Kendras, Scheme for Promotion of Menstrual Hygiene, Samagra Shiksha, Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin), Swachh Vidyalaya Initiative and various state schemes and measures that are already in place in schools.

Judgement

The Supreme Court held that the lack of gender-separated toilets and the non-access to menstrual absorbents in schools is violative of Articles 14, 21, and 21A of the Constitution. The Court was well aware of the fact that education is a basic human right[8] and that the absence of menstrual hygiene management facilities results in absenteeism and dropout rates, thus perpetuating structural inequality against girls.

The Supreme Court reiterated that the right to dignified menstrual health is a part of the right to life, dignity, privacy, and autonomy under Article 21 and that menstrual hygiene management facilities are an integral part of the right to education and the statutory obligations under the RTE Act, 2009. Although the Court was aware of the existing facilities, it emphasized the need for their effective implementation.

Legal Reasoning

The Court started by reiterating that the right to education is not only provided for in the statute books but is a basic human right. The Court relied on international human rights instruments such as the UDHR[9], ICESCR[10], CEDAW[11], and CRC[12] to emphasize that the right to education must be accessible, non-discriminatory, and meaningful.

The Court made it clear that the right to education is not limited to formal enrolment and the right to education encompasses the ability to take part in the learning process on a continuous and meaningful basis. Structural obstacles that make it impossible to attend are contrary to the essence of the right.

The Court dismissed a formal concept of equality and instead it applied a substantive equality paradigm, where simply treating all people “equally” is not enough, especially if social and biological facts impose different burdens. Menstruation is a biological issue that turns into a disadvantage when schools do not have toilets, sanitary materials for absorption, or disposal facilities. With regards to this issue, more girls are adversely affected resulting in the number of absentees and drop-outs rising and equal educational opportunities are undermined as a result.

The Court held that menstrual health is a part of the right to life under Article 21, as it is grounded in dignity, autonomy, privacy, and health by expanding the scope of the Article. The denial of basic hygiene facilities affects girls’ ability to manage menstruation safely and with dignity, thus denying them their basic rights.

Using a substantive equality analysis under Article 14, the Court held that the absence of toilets and sanitary facilities affects girls’ meaningful engagement in education and impacts equality of opportunity. It further held that under Article 21A and the RTE Act, the availability of sanitation facilities is a mandatory requirement in schools. Although programs are in place, the challenge is in the implementation, as constitutional rights are to be realized in practice and not in policy.

Conclusion 

This is a historic constitutional milestone because it holds that Menstrual Health and Hygiene is an integral part of the Right to Life under Article 21, as it converts what was previously a welfare measure into a right. This is a positive move forward because it brings Menstrual Hygiene within the purview of enforceable constitutional obligations[13], which changes the State’s response from discretion to accountability, and moves the needle on gender equality in education and society.

Reference(S):

[1] Dr Jaya Thakur v Union of India 2026 INSC 97; Writ Petition (C) No 1000 of 2022 (SC, 30 January 2026).

[2] Constitution of India 1950, art 32.

[3] ‘Menstrual Health as a Facet of Right to Life: Dr Jaya Thakur v Government of India’ (Supreme Court Observer, 30 January 2026)

[4] Constitution of India 1950, art 14.

[5] Constitution of India 1950, art 21.

[6] Constitution of India 1950, art 21A.

[7] Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, ss 3, 19.

[8] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948 UNGA Res 217 A(III)) art 26.

[9] ibid.

[10] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 3, art 13.

[11] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (adopted 18 December 1979, entered into force 3 September 1981) 1249 UNTS 13, art 10.

[12] Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) 1577 UNTS 3, art 28.

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