Authored By: Shreyas Rastogi
ICFAI UNIVERSITY DEHRADUN
Introduction
“If I take leave during my period, I lose ₹300 that day. But the pain doesn’t stop because I’m poor,” says Rekha, a 39-year-old domestic worker from Kanpur. She is one of India’s 200 million informal women workers who are forced to choose between bleeding in silence or losing their livelihood.[1]”
Despite progress in conversations around workplace equity, menstrual leave remains a taboo topic in India’s vast informal sector. While tech companies and some state governments have adopted menstrual-friendly policies for salaried workers, over 90% of Indian women in the workforce remain excluded from these basic rights. They form the invisible majority—working in fields, homes, construction sites, and roadside stalls—without contracts, sick leave, or dignity-based protections.
According to the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) 2023–24, 41.7% of India’s female labour force is engaged in work, but nearly 94% of them are part of the informal sector[2]. Most earn a pittance and lack access to healthcare, sanitary products, or any social safety net that recognises their biological needs.
This article argues that the absence of menstrual leave in India’s informal sector is not just an oversight—it is a constitutional and human rights failure. By examining the law, field data, and lived realities, we explore how menstruation has been systematically excluded from labour rights discourse and why this demands urgent policy intervention.
Because when women bleed to keep the economy moving and the law refuses to see them—the injustice becomes institutional.
Informal Sector & Gendered Invisibility
The informal sector is the backbone of India’s economy, employing over 90% of the workforce, with women constituting a significant share. The Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) 2023–24 shows a rise in the female labour force participation rate to 41.7%, up from 23% in 2017–18. However, this apparent progress hides a deeper concern: nearly 94% of working women remain in the informal sector, without
contracts, workplace safety, or essential health safeguards.
Women engaged in domestic work, construction, agriculture, vending, and stitching often perform strenuous physical labour during menstruation, with no access to rest or relief. PLFS data reveals that 67.4% of employed women are self-employed, rising to 73.5% in rural areas—not by choice, but due to poverty, caregiving responsibilities, and lack of formal job opportunities[3].
A stark wage gap further deepens their vulnerability. In 2024, salaried women earned ₹74–₹76 for every ₹100 earned by men, while self-employed women earned only ₹35–₹38[4]. For informal workers, losing a day’s income due to menstruation risks replacement, making rest unaffordable.
Despite their overwhelming numbers, labour and welfare laws ignore menstrual health. The Code on Social Security, 2020, offers no provisions[5]. Schemes like e-SHRAM[6] and PM-SYM[7] omitted menstrual dignity, and even the National Commission for Women (2022–23 report), though acknowledging the issue, failed to recommend reforms[8].
This silence is systemic, reflecting gender invisibility. Most women lack contracts, toilets, hygiene products, or rest areas. Menstruation remains a private burden, despite impacting public health, productivity, and dignity.
This legal neglect is not just a policy gap—it is a denial of constitutional rights to dignity (Article 21), equality (Article 14), and health for India’s most vulnerable working women[9].
Menstruation, Work, and Legal Blind Spots
In India, labour law reform has largely focused on simplifying compliance and promoting ease of doing business. However, these reforms have failed to address the everyday biological needs of women—most notably, the reality of menstruation. The Code on Wages, 2019, Code on Social Security, 2020, and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 collectively aim to provide universal labour protections. Yet, none of them contain any provision for menstrual leave, menstrual hygiene, or gender-sensitive occupational health policies[10]. This omission reflects a long-standing legislative blind spot—a perception that menstruation is a personal issue, rather than a matter of workplace dignity and health.
Even existing laws meant to protect women in the workforce stop short of addressing menstruation. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which was amended in 2017 to include 26 weeks of paid maternity leave, makes no mention of menstruation as a health concern[11]. Its scope is limited to childbirth and related medical leave, and it applies only to women employed in formal establishments with 10 or more workers. For informal workers, who make up the overwhelming majority of India’s female workforce, this law offers no protection or recognition.
In 1992, Bihar became the only Indian state to introduce a menstrual leave policy for government school teachers and female employees. More recently, in 2023, Kerala took a progressive step by announcing menstrual leave for female students in higher education institutions. Private companies like Zomato and Swiggy have also introduced menstrual leave for their employees in white-collar roles. However, these examples remain isolated and symbolic, with no overarching legal mandate to guide implementation in the informal sector, where the need is greatest.
The consequences of this legal silence are severe. Informal women workers, lacking recognition of menstrual needs, are forced to perform strenuous labour during menstruation, risking long-term health issues like pelvic inflammatory disease, chronic fatigue, and anaemia. The absence of clean toilets, rest areas, and menstrual hygiene products at worksites worsens their condition, violating their constitutional right to life with dignity under Article 21[12].
This legal neglect also reinforces menstrual stigma, where periods are treated as shameful or a sign of weakness. In both rural and urban informal sectors, this perception prevents women from requesting leave, and employers—often women themselves—deny time off, fearing productivity loss. The entire burden falls on the woman, who must conceal her pain and work at par with men, without any recognition of her biological needs.
Socio-Legal Discrimination: Constitutional and Human Rights Lens
India’s legal and constitutional framework proudly proclaims a commitment to equality, dignity, and social justice. Yet, when it comes to menstruating informal workers, the silence of the law becomes deafening. The constitutional promise of equality under Article 14, protection against discrimination under Article 15, and the guarantee of life with dignity under Article 21 remain largely theoretical for millions of women who must bleed in silence while toiling in unsafe, unsanitary, and unrecognised conditions.
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws. However, treating unequals equally can itself amount to discrimination. The Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that the principle of equality does not imply identical treatment but rather equitable treatment that accounts for biological and social differences. In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951 AIR 226), the Court recognised that equality sometimes demands affirmative action[13]. This principle directly supports the case for menstrual leave as a reasonable accommodation—not a favour but a necessity to bridge structural disadvantage.
Article 15(3) explicitly empowers the state to make special provisions for women and children14. Menstrual leave, thus, would not violate the equality principle but would in fact be aligned with this constitutional mandate. The lack of such provision particularly disadvantages women in the informal sector, where physical labour is strenuous, and the absence of menstrual support directly affects their health, earnings, and workplace participation. It’s a clear case of indirect gender discrimination—where a neutral policy (no leave provision) disproportionately impacts one gender due to physiological realities.
Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been expansively interpreted to include the right to health, hygiene, and dignity. In Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India [(1995) 3 SCC 42], the Supreme Court held that the right to health and humane working conditions is integral to Article 21[14]. Can we then call it humane when a woman working as a brick kiln labourer, bent under the sun while menstruating, has no option but to bleed into torn cloth without access to a toilet?
Additionally, Article 42, one of the most progressive yet often-ignored directives under the Directive Principles of State Policy, mandates the State to “make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief[15].” If maternity is acknowledged as a biological fact warranting legal protection, then menstruation, which precedes and regulates it, should not be ignored. The exclusion of menstrual leave from statutory law is not only a policy failure but a constitutional contradiction.
India is also a signatory to international conventions that affirm the right to decent work, health, and non-discrimination. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), ratified by India, guarantees “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work[16].” The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) further obligates the state to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment, including the right to protection of health and safe working conditions[17]. The ILO’s Decent Work Agenda similarly includes gender equity and occupational health as core pillars[18]. By failing to incorporate menstrual leave within labour protections—especially for informal workers—India risks violating both domestic constitutional principles and its international obligations.
Intersectionality and the Informal Woman Worker
India’s informal economy is not a monolith—it’s a tapestry woven from gender, caste, class, and geography. These overlapping social identities profoundly influence how and whether women can manage menstruation while working. Ignoring these intersectional layers would obscure the lived realities of those most vulnerable.
Caste, Class & Spatial Divide
In rural Rajasthan, a June 2025 ethnographic study reveals that caste shapes where women can go when menstruating. Lower-caste women are often barred from shared toilets and open defecation spaces, forcing them into unsafe, secluded areas during their periods—making work even more arduous. Dalit women, who form a disproportionate share of daily-wage labour in brick kilns and fields, not only earn less but also face additional shame and barriers when seeking basic privacy[19]. Studies show they are almost twice as likely to use torn cloth and lack access to clean toilets than higher-caste women[20].
Class intersects here too: low-income women, regardless of caste, cannot afford sanitary pads, and cannot afford a day off during heavy bleeding. Middle-class women in the informal economy—say, self-employed vendors—may have more agency to rest, but they too operate without formal contracts or welfare protections.
Rural vs. Urban Contexts
A 2025 report on labour found that rural women predominate in low-hour, unpaid informal work, while urban women are more likely to exit the labour force altogether. For rural women, menstruation means suffering while managing fields or construction—often far from home and without toilets or rest spaces. Urban informal workers like domestic help or street vendors may have slightly better access to facilities—but face insecurity from fluctuating workdays and cramped living conditions, limiting their ability to manage menstrual needs[21].
Gender + Intersectional Identity
Beyond caste and locality, intersectionality also highlights how education, social stigma, and bodily autonomy play roles. Research shows that rural, low-caste women often lack awareness about sanitary hygiene, compounded by taboos that silence their needs[22].
Meanwhile, grassroots organisations like SEWA (Self-Employed Women’s Association) and NGOs such as Humans for Humanity are working to address menstrual awareness and dignity in these intersecting spaces —but they remain confined to pockets, with limited legal enforcement or scaled policy attention[23].
Layered Burdens, Layered Harms
Intersectionality means these burdens are not just additive—they amplify one another. For example, a Dalit woman working in a kiln in rural Uttar Pradesh may suffer:
- Lower earnings and more shame tied to menstruation
- No choice but to work long hours under hot, unsanitary conditions
- Greater vulnerability to infections and no recourse to healthcare
All while belonging to systems that deny her bodily needs and deny her voice in policy conversations.
Case Studies
Mona: The Waste Collector Who Lost Income, Not Opportunity
Mona, a 29-year-old waste collector in Ghaziabad, represents the invisible struggle of countless informal workers across India. During heavy flow days of her menstruation, she skips work because there’s no safe space to change or dispose of menstrual products. In one case, she gave her route to a neighbor and consequently lost up to 10% of her monthly income—because she couldn’t afford sanitary breaks or paid leave. Mona’s story reveals the harsh trade-offs these women make every cycle—pain for wages, dignity for survival[24].
Chetna’s Delhi Slum Survey: Struggle, Shame, Change
In the slums of west and north‑west Delhi, a grassroots NGO called Chetna surveyed menstruating women and found that 59% struggle to afford menstrual products, 64% said pad expenses severely impacted household budgets, and 57% compromised on essentials such as food or education. These women often rely on torn cloth and report continued adherence to menstrual myths. Yet, through regular awareness sessions, Chetna is enabling change—shifting behavior and expanding access to hygienic alternatives and dignity[25].
Odisha’s Policy Shift: A State Steps Forward
In August 2024, Odisha became the third Indian state to announce a one-day monthly menstrual leave policy for all women workers, in both public and private sectors. The leave can be taken on either the first or second day of the menstrual cycle, effective immediately after announcement. Advocacy and grassroots commentary from users on Reddit both praised and critiqued the move, revealing public concerns about hiring bias and implementation—but its symbolic and legal importance is undeniable27.
Karnataka on the Brink: A Model Policy in the Works
During mid-2024, the Karnataka government established an expert panel—comprising legal scholars, medical professionals, trade unions, and women’s representatives—to draft a “Right of Women to Menstrual Leave and Free Access to Menstrual Health Products Bill.” The panel’s proposed policy would allow one-day paid menstrual leave per month for female workers in factories, IT, and garment sectors. Though not yet formalized, the discussion indicates growing policy traction and the potential for legislative precedent[26].
Legal and Constitutional Justifications for Menstrual Leave in India
India’s constitutional and statutory framework, while not explicitly referencing menstrual leave, lays a strong foundation to support its recognition as a workplace right. Rooted in the principles of dignity, equality, and humane working conditions, menstrual leave can be justified not as a welfare concession, but as a constitutional obligation grounded in fundamental rights and supported by judicial precedent.
1. Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life, which the Supreme Court has expansively interpreted to encompass the right to health, privacy, and dignity. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India [(1984) 3 SCC 161], the Court declared that the right to live with dignity includes “protection of the health and strength of workers,” and emphasized humane working conditions[27]. Similarly, in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248], it held that the right to life means more than mere survival—it signifies a life with dignity[28].
2. Article 14 – Right to Equality
Article 14 ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. However, Indian jurisprudence recognizes that equality does not imply identical treatment. In Air India v Nargesh Meerza [(1981) 4 SCC 335], the Court held that service conditions that discriminate on gendered grounds violate constitutional guarantees of equality. It emphasized the need for gender-sensitive policies[29].
3. Article 15(3) – Protective Discrimination
Clause (3) of Article 15 empowers the State to make special provisions for women and children. Far from being discriminatory, such provisions aim to correct historical disadvantages and enable real equality. In Government of Andhra Pradesh v P.B. Vijayakumar [(1995) SCC (1) 520], the Court upheld women’s reservations, affirming that Article 15(3) enhances rather than contradicts Article 14[30].
4. Article 42 – Directive Principles of State Policy
Article 42 instructs the State to ensure just and humane working conditions and maternity relief. While not enforceable by courts, Directive Principles guide legislative and
judicial action. In Randhir Singh v Union of India [(1982) 1 SCC 618], the Court emphasized that although DPSPs are non-justiciable, they are instrumental in interpreting fundamental rights[31].
5. International Obligations and Judicial Interpretation
India’s international commitments further reinforce the legal argument for menstrual leave. Article 11 of CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), to which India is a signatory, mandates the elimination of gender-based discrimination in employment and emphasizes safe working conditions. Additionally, ILO Convention No. 183 (Maternity Protection) and Convention No. 190 (Violence and Harassment) provide valuable international benchmarks—even if not ratified by India.
In Vishaka v State of Rajasthan [(1997) 6 SCC 241], the Supreme Court held that international conventions can be read into domestic law when there is no inconsistency with fundamental rights[32].
6. Labour Laws and Judicial Trends
Indian labour law already reflects sensitivity to gender-specific biological needs. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (amended in 2017) includes provisions such as paid maternity leave, crèche facilities, and nursing breaks. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Female Workers (Muster Roll) [(2000) 3 SCC 224], the Court extended maternity benefits to casual and contract workers, stating that reproductive health rights must apply across employment categories[33].
Conclusion
By tracing the lived experiences of women like Mona and Meena, and examining policy gaps in states like Odisha and Karnataka, this article argues that menstrual leave is not a privilege—it is a constitutional right. Despite progress in maternity protections, Indian labour laws remain silent on menstruation, particularly affecting the 90% of working women in the informal sector. This neglect reduces a legitimate workplace concern to a private burden.
Articles 14, 15(3), 21, and 42 of the Constitution, along with international obligations under CEDAW and ILO conventions, provide a strong legal foundation for menstrual leave.
Judicial precedents—such as Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Female Workers and Bandhua Mukti Morcha—underscore the courts’ recognition of gendered labour realities[34].
States like Odisha and Karnataka offer encouraging policy models. Backed by grassroots reports and empirical data, the demand for menstrual leave is clear. It’s time the law acknowledged menstruation not as an inconvenience but as a matter of dignity, health, and labour justice.
Reference(S):
[1] International Labour Organization, Women and Men in the Informal Economy: A Statistical Picture (3rd edn, ILO 2018).
[2] Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Periodic Labour Force Survey Annual Report 2023–24 (Government of India, 2024).
[3] Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Periodic Labour Force Survey Annual Report 2023–24 (Government of India, 2024).
[4] IndiaSpend, ‘Gender Pay Gap: Women Earn Just ₹76 For Every ₹100 Earned By Men’ (IndiaSpend, 5 March 2024) https://www.indiaspend.com.
[5] Code on Social Security 2020, No. 36 of 2020.
[6] Ministry of Labour and Employment, ‘e-SHRAM’ https://eshram.gov.in.
[7] Ministry of Labour and Employment, ‘Pradhan Mantri Shram Yogi Maandhan Yojana’ https://maandhan.in/shramyogi
[8] National Commission for Women, Annual Report 2022–23 (Government of India 2023) https://ncw.nic.in
[9] Constitution of India 1950, arts 14, 21.
[10] Code on Wages 2019 (No 29 of 2019); Code on Social Security 2020 (No 36 of 2020); Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code 2020 (No 37 of 2020).
[11] Maternity Benefit Act 1961 (No 53 of 1961), amended by Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act 2017 (No 6 of 2017).
[12] Constitution of India 1950, art 21.
[13] State of Madras v Champakam Dorairajan AIR 1951 SC 226. 14 Constitution of India 1950, art 15(3).
[14] Consumer Education and Research Centre v Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 42 (SC).
[15] Constitution of India 1950, art 42.
[16] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 3.
[17] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (adopted 18 December 1979, entered into force 3 September 1981) 1249 UNTS 13.
[18] ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (1998).
[19] Ethnographic Study on Sanitation and Informal Labour in Rural Rajasthan (Menstrual Rights India Initiative, June 2025)
[20] National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), 2021–22, Government of India; supported by Oxfam India, ‘Menstrual Health and Caste Inequality Report’ (2023).
[21] All India Labour Study 2025 (Labour Bureau, Government of India) https://labour.gov.in accessed 20 July 2025.
[22] UNICEF and WaterAid, ‘Menstrual Hygiene Practices Among Marginalised Women in Rural India’ (2022) https://unicef.org.in accessed 21 July 2025.
[23] Humans for Humanity, ‘Breaking the Taboo’ (2023) https://humansforhumanity.in; SEWA, ‘Health, Work and Dignity: Informal Women Workers in India’ (2024) https://sewa.org.
[24] Author interview with Mona (Ghaziabad, April 2025); Data on file with author.
[25] Chetna, ‘Menstrual Equity Survey Report’ (Delhi Slums, 2024), data shared with author. 27Government of Odisha, ‘Official Notification on Menstrual Leave Policy’ (August 2024); Public response via Reddit India threads accessed July 2025.
[26] Expert Committee Minutes, Karnataka Women’s Labour Welfare Department (June 2024); Interviews with SEWA-Karnataka leaders, July 2025.
[27] Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161.
[28] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.
[29] Air India v Nargesh Meerza (1981) 4 SCC 335.
[30] Government of Andhra Pradesh v P.B. Vijayakumar (1995) SCC (1) 520.
[31] Randhir Singh v Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618.
[32] Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241.
[33] Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Female Workers (Muster Roll) (2000) 3 SCC 224.
[34] Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Female Workers (Muster Roll) (2000) 3 SCC 224.
