3 min readBengaluruDec 9, 2025 03:34 PM IST
First published on: Dec 9, 2025 at 03:12 PM IST
The Karnataka High Court Tuesday stayed a government notification issued on November 20 that expanded the ambit of the proposed menstrual leave for women employees, based on petitions filed by the Bangalore Hotels Association and Avirata Connectivity Systems, before agreeing to hear the matter further on Wednesday, following a submission by Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty.
Justice Jyoti Mulimani passed the order.
The initial petition by the Bangalore Hotels Association called for the government notification to be quashed, declared violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and also sought its operation to be stayed in the interim.
The original policy for menstrual leave, approved by the Karnataka Cabinet in October, mandated one day’s paid leave per month for women employees, with Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil noting that it had been implemented after its efficacy was observed in other states. Similar policies have been implemented in Kerala, Odisha, and Bihar.
The November notification also brought all establishments under the Factories Act, 1948; the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961; the Plantations Labour Act, 1951; the Beedi and Cigar Workers Act, 1966; and the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 into this policy.
On Tuesday, the court granted the stay on the November notification after inquiring whether the stakeholders had been heard before issuing the contested notification. The court was informed that this was not done.
Subsequently, following submissions by Advocate General Shetty in the afternoon, arguing that the stay should not be granted, the court agreed to instead hear the matter Wednesday.
The Association, which claims to represent over 1,500 different establishments, argued in its petition that the notification was not supported by law, since none of the laws cited by it had specific provisions mandating employers to provide menstrual leave.
It argued that if the Karnataka Government wanted to introduce such leaves, then the laws should have been amended. It also argued that a preliminary notification should have been issued seeking objections from stakeholders, and since this was not done, it was a violation of natural justice.
The petitioner argued that the objections were sought only through the labour commissioner and were not made in the public domain. Among other arguments, it also stated that this policy could be a form of “benevolent sexism”, potentially causing harm to the employability of women in the private sector.
In a statement to the press last week, the Association said, “Granting of such leaves is within the exclusive domain of individual employers, to be governed by their internal HR policies… the Government cannot interfere in such administrative matters. It is also pointed out that the Government, one of the largest employers of women, has not extended menstrual leaves to its employees, rendering the notification arbitrary and discriminatory.”
The HC, earlier on November 27, had granted interim protection to Ashwin Sancheti of Sattva. (File photo0 
Share
