4 min readMar 19, 2026 06:15 AM IST
First published on: Mar 19, 2026 at 06:15 AM IST
Last week, when the Supreme Court refused to hear a PIL on a national policy for menstrual leaves, it stated, “The moment it is introduced as a compulsory condition, you do not know the amount of damage you are going to do to their (women employees’) career. Nobody will give them big responsibility.”
Are menstrual leaves indeed a structural barrier to enhancing women’s labour force participation? Or will they, in fact, facilitate women’s retention as they legally allow the rest required during painful, debilitating period pain?
The evidence, unfortunately, seems to point in the direction of employer discrimination. A parallel can be drawn with what happened after the Maternity Benefit Act, 2017 introduced a six-month, employer-funded maternity leave. Purna Banerjee, Shreya Biswas, and Debojyoti Mazumder (‘Maternity Leave and Labour Market Outcomes’, 2025) show that the policy significantly reduced the employment probability for women in the high-fertility age group (ages 20-29), especially in high-skilled occupations with high wages in the formal sector.
The formulation of the law is critical. Spain, the only Western economy to have a national law on menstrual leave, requires a doctor’s certificate and bears the cost through publicly funded social security. The cost of the leave is not on the employer, thereby reducing the chances of discrimination.
So where do we go from here? Here are a few things to consider. One, we need more quantitative evidence on whether paid period leaves result in employer discrimination and what it does to women’s labour productivity and retention. We need studies that provide comparative analysis; a cross-state comparison, possibly across Karnataka and Odisha — early adopters of a menstrual leave policy — with other states that do not have paid period leave. Or a comparative firm-level analysis of companies that offer paid period leaves versus those that don’t. This will allow policymakers to make data-driven, evidence based decisions.
Two, we need a national menstrual hygiene policy that covers all menstruating persons. Menstrual health management (MHM) initiatives cannot be limited to rural schoolgirls. MHM policy is needed for all menstruating persons — working and non-working. And such a policy needs to go beyond subsidised sanitary pads. It can introduce financial incentives for sanitary napkin manufacturing, issue guidelines for provision of sanitary napkins and MHM infrastructure at workplaces and additional medical leaves for persons with severe period pain (similar to Spain, maybe). It can even look into protocols for period pain management.
Three, building on the foundations laid by the Swachh Bharat Mission, we now need a Swachh Bharat, Sashakt Nari Mission to build or upgrade toilets for women and girls in public spaces and workplaces. Under this mission, CSR funding can support municipal corporations, public transport authorities, industrial areas, market associations, and other public spaces, expand sanitation infrastructure, improve maintenance and cleanliness of women’s toilets across public spaces.
We need more empathy and flexibility. Even without legal mandates, some companies are beginning to recognise that offering period leaves or work-from-home options for menstruators who require rest/medical attention improves employee morale, increases loyalty, and boosts labour productivity. Private companies can offer flexible work arrangements or even leaves, as a benefit to their employees who menstruate, per their choice.
It’s unlikely that this debate will die down any time soon. And that’s a good thing. Because even as we keep debating the merits and demerits of a law on period leave, governments, private companies, and community-based organisations can keep working to make the world a slightly easier place for menstruating persons.
The writer is founder, Nikore Associates
It’s unlikely that this debate will die down any time soon. And that’s a good thing. 
Share
