Introduction

In a landmark affirmation of gender justice, the Supreme Court of India has held that menstrual health and access to menstrual hygiene management (MHM) in schools are intrinsic to the Right to Life and Dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court made it clear that menstrual health is not a matter of charity or welfare, but a constitutional entitlement. By grounding menstrual hygiene within fundamental rights, the judgment reframes how the State must view girls’ health, education, and dignity—moving from discretionary schemes to enforceable obligations.

Constitutional Foundations of the Ruling

The Court anchored its reasoning in a rights-based interpretation of the Constitution:

• Article 21 (Right to Life)
  The right to life has long been interpreted to include dignity, privacy, bodily autonomy, and health. The Court explicitly recognised menstrual health as falling within this protective ambit, acknowledging that dignity cannot exist where girls are forced to manage menstruation without privacy, safety, or adequate facilities.

• Article 21A (Right to Education)
  Free and compulsory education is not limited to classroom access. It necessarily includes enabling conditions—such as free sanitary napkins, functional toilets, and privacy—without which girls cannot attend school regularly or participate equally.

Together, these provisions establish that menstrual health in schools is a constitutional necessity, not an administrative option.

Problem Identified by the Court

The judgment highlights the systemic denial of menstrual dignity in schools:

• Absence of MHM facilities exposes girls to:

  • Stigma, stereotyping, and humiliation

  • Violations of privacy and bodily autonomy

  • Forced absenteeism during menstruation

• Many girls resort to unsafe menstrual practices due to lack of access, information, or privacy—posing serious health risks.

• The phenomenon of “menstrual poverty” disproportionately affects students from poorer households and rural areas, compounding existing inequalities.

The Court recognised that these conditions are not isolated lapses but structural failures that undermine equality.

Educational Consequences of Inadequate MHM

The denial of menstrual hygiene management has a direct and lasting impact on education:

• Girls miss school during menstruation, disrupting learning at critical stages of primary and secondary education.

• Repeated absenteeism leads to lower academic performance, Higher dropout rates, Long-term social and economic disadvantages

• By linking MHM to educational continuity, the Court held that denial of menstrual hygiene amounts to denial of equal educational opportunity.

Directions Issued by the Supreme Court

To translate constitutional principles into practice, the Court issued clear and actionable directions to States and Union Territories:

• Free access to sanitary napkins for all school-going girls.

• Universal coverage across Government and private schools, Urban and rural areas

• Functional, gender-segregated toilets in every school to ensure privacy and safety.

• Biodegradable sanitary napkins, preferably made:

  • Easily accessible within toilet premises

  • Through sanitary napkin vending machines

These directions aim to normalise menstrual care within school infrastructure, rather than treating it as an exceptional add-on.

A Rights-Based Framing of Dignity

A key contribution of the judgment is its insistence that dignity must be realised in everyday conditions of life, not left as an abstract constitutional promise.

• The absence of MHM facilities was held to violate the right to dignity, right to privacy, bodily autonomy and also right to education.

• By recognising menstruation as a lived reality requiring institutional support, the Court dismantled the silence and stigma that often surround the issue.

This approach marks a decisive shift from paternalistic welfare thinking to substantive equality.

Why This Judgment Matters

The ruling has far-reaching implications:

• It elevates menstrual hygiene from policy discretion to a constitutional obligation.

• It reinforces a gender-sensitive interpretation of fundamental rights, acknowledging the specific barriers faced by girls.

• It strengthens the conceptual link between health, education, dignity, and equality, offering a holistic framework for rights enforcement.

• It creates a strong legal foundation for:

  • Budgetary prioritisation

  • Administrative accountability and 

  • Uniform implementation across States

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment affirms a simple but powerful truth: menstrual health is central to dignity, equality, and the right to life. Schools cannot be spaces of learning if they are also spaces of fear, stigma, and deprivation. By recognising menstrual hygiene management as a constitutional imperative, the Court has set a clear standard—girls must be able to attend school without interruption, humiliation, or health risks. The responsibility now lies with governments and school authorities to ensure that this right is realised on the ground, making schools truly safe, inclusive, and enabling spaces for every child.