Menstrual Health Recognised as Integral to Right to Life Under Article 21

In a landmark development for gender justice and constitutional rights, the Supreme Court of India, in Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India & Ors., has recognised menstrual health as an essential component of the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment foregrounds menstruation not merely as a biological phenomenon but as a matter of equality, dignity, privacy, education, and social justice. By linking menstrual health to fundamental rights, the Court has shifted the discourse from welfare to enforceable entitlements, thereby obligating the State to adopt structural measures that ensure menstrual hygiene management (MHM) across schools and public institutions.

Background of the Case

The issue came before the Supreme Court through a public interest litigation filed by a social worker seeking directions to the Union and State governments to:

• Provide free sanitary pads to girls studying from Classes VI to XII,
• Ensure separate toilets for girls in all government and aided schools,
• Appoint cleaning staff for maintenance of sanitation facilities,
• Conduct awareness programmes to remove menstrual stigma and promote hygienic practices.

The petitioner argued that the absence of menstrual hygiene infrastructure leads to absenteeism, dropouts, and psychological distress among adolescent girls, thereby infringing constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and education.

The Supreme Court treated the matter as one of systemic importance affecting millions of young girls and women across India. It examined governmental policies, international conventions, empirical research, and constitutional principles before arriving at its conclusions.

Menstrual Health and Menstrual Poverty

The Court recognised menstruation as a natural biological process requiring access to:

• Clean menstrual absorbents,
• Private sanitation facilities,
• Safe disposal systems,
• Adequate water supply,
• Awareness and education to counter stigma.

It acknowledged that menstrual poverty extends beyond the inability to purchase sanitary products; it includes lack of sanitation infrastructure, poor awareness, and cultural taboos that restrict mobility and participation in public life. These factors disproportionately affect girls from economically weaker backgrounds and those attending government schools.

Menstrual Health as a Component of Article 21

1. Right to Dignity

The Court reiterated that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity. Managing menstruation safely and privately is intrinsic to human dignity. Forcing girls to skip school due to a lack of facilities or compelling them to adopt unhygienic practices undermines bodily integrity and self-worth.

The judgment emphasised that menstrual stigma often results in embarrassment, social exclusion, and emotional distress, which violates the constitutional promise of dignity.

2. Right to Privacy and Bodily Autonomy

Menstrual management is closely linked to privacy. The absence of gender-segregated toilets or disposal facilities exposes girls to humiliation and violates their autonomy. The Court held that ensuring privacy during menstruation is a constitutional obligation flowing from Article 21.

3. Right to Health

Although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the right to health has been read into Article 21 through judicial interpretation. The Court observed that unhygienic menstrual practices can lead to infections and long-term reproductive health complications, making access to safe menstrual hygiene a public health imperative.

Link Between Menstrual Health and Education

The Court highlighted that education is a fundamental human right and a key tool for empowerment. However, menstruation acts as a barrier to educational access when adequate facilities are absent.

Studies placed before the Court indicated that a significant percentage of adolescent girls miss school during menstruation due to:

• Lack of toilets,
• Fear of staining clothes,
• Inability to change pads,
• Social restrictions.

The Court concluded that when girls are forced to stay away from school due to inadequate menstrual hygiene infrastructure, it amounts to a violation of their right to education under Articles 21 and 21A.

Substantive Equality under Article 14

The judgment adopts a substantive approach to equality, moving beyond formal equality. The Court observed that treating boys and girls alike without acknowledging biological differences results in indirect discrimination.

True equality requires addressing structural disadvantages that uniquely affect menstruating girls. Therefore, affirmative measures such as the provision of sanitary products and sanitation facilities are constitutionally justified.

The Court emphasised that:

• Equality is not achieved through identical treatment,
• Differential treatment may be necessary to ensure equal outcomes,
• State intervention is essential to remove systemic barriers.

Thus, menstrual health policies are not concessions but constitutional obligations.

Intersectionality: Gender, Disability, and Marginalisation

The Court also acknowledged that girls with disabilities face compounded challenges in managing menstruation due to inaccessible infrastructure. The absence of disability-friendly toilets further marginalises them and excludes them from educational participation.

By recognising intersectionality, the Court expanded the scope of equality jurisprudence, calling for inclusive policies that accommodate diverse needs.

Government Schemes and Policy Framework

The judgment examined existing government initiatives, including:

• Distribution of subsidised sanitary pads,
• Installation of vending machines and incinerators,
• Awareness programmes,
• Funding for sanitation infrastructure.

While acknowledging these efforts, the Court noted that implementation gaps remain a major challenge. It stressed that policies must translate into tangible outcomes rather than remain on paper.

International Human Rights Perspective

The Court referred to international conventions recognising education, dignity, and health as fundamental rights. It was observed that India’s obligations under global human rights frameworks reinforce the constitutional mandate to ensure menstrual health accessibility.

The judgment underscored that menstrual health is integral to achieving gender equality and social justice worldwide.

Role of Awareness and Social Change

The Court stressed that infrastructural measures alone are insufficient. Social taboos surrounding menstruation must be addressed through:

• Curriculum integration,
• Community awareness campaigns,
• Training of teachers and health workers,
• Engagement of boys and men in destigmatisation efforts.

By advocating cultural transformation, the Court recognised menstruation as both a public health and social justice issue.

Constitutional Vision of Social Justice

The judgment situates menstrual health within the broader framework of constitutional morality. It emphasises that social justice requires the State to actively remove barriers preventing equal participation in public life.

Failure to provide menstrual hygiene facilities results in exclusion and perpetuates gender inequality, contrary to the Constitution’s transformative goals.

Inaccessibility of menstrual hygiene management measures undermines the dignity of a girl child, as dignity finds expression in conditions that enable individuals to live without humiliation, exclusion, or avoidable suffering. Privacy is inextricably linked with dignity. As a corollary, the right to privacy entails a duty on the State to not only refrain from violating privacy but an accompanying obligation on the State to take necessary measures to protect the privacy of an individual.  

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s recognition of menstrual health as integral to the right to life under Article 21 marks a transformative moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. By linking menstruation with dignity, privacy, education, and equality, the Court has affirmed that biological realities cannot be ignored in the pursuit of justice.

Menstrual health is no longer confined to the domain of welfare policy; it now stands as a constitutional guarantee. This judgment compels governments to move beyond symbolic gestures and ensure real, measurable improvements in sanitation infrastructure and awareness.

Ultimately, the decision reinforces a powerful principle: a girl’s education and dignity must never be compromised because of a natural biological process. Ensuring menstrual health is not merely a matter of public policy; it is a constitutional imperative grounded in the ideals of equality, dignity, and social justice.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams