In light of the evolving debate over menstrual leaves, the Supreme Court on Friday, March 13 observed that a law mandating such a leave will hamper female employment in the country and make women feel inferior to men, NDTV reported. The top court, however, said the competent authority may consider the representation and examine the possibility of framing a policy on menstrual leave after consulting all relevant stakeholders.
The PIL was accordingly disposed of with the direction to the authorities to take an appropriate decision on the representation. Highlighting job concerns arising out of menstrual leaves, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant was quoted as saying, "Creating awareness and sensitisation is different but the moment you bring a law mandating menstrual leave, nobody will hire them."
He also noted that such a measure can adversely impact hiring of females across the country. "You don't know the mindset of employers! They will not hire women if we make such a law," the CJI said. The apex court's observations came for a petition, filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, which urged the Supreme Court to direct state governments to formulate regulations for providing leave to women during menstrual problems.
The petition requested the top court to direct the government to effectively implement Section 14 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Additionally, it sought menstrual leave for female students and working women. CJI also opined that these pleas are made to create fear, to call women inferior as if menstruation is something bad happening to them.
Concerns over mandatory menstrual leave
Responding over the relaxation given in Kerala schools and private companies providing voluntary leaves, the CJI mentioned that compulsary holidays may impact job prospects for women. The CJI said, "If voluntarily given excellent, the moment you say compulsory in law, nobody will give them jobs, nobody will take them in judiciary or govt jobs, their career is over ....they will say - you should sit at home after informing everyone."
Taking note of the petitioner's submissions, the bench also said that the petitioner had already made a representation to the relevant authorities. The bench stated that it was not necessary for the petitioner to repeatedly approach the court seeking a mandamus.
The top court directed in its conclusion, "The petitioner has made representation to the authority...whatever was required to be done by the petitioner is done...it is not necessary for the petitioner to approach the court again and seek a mandamus. We direct the competent authority shall consider the representation for modelling a policy in consultation by all stakeholders."
ALSO READ: Celebrating Women — Easy. Changing Their World — Hard.
Essential Business Intelligence, Continuous LIVE TV, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.