Context

In a landmark judgment delivered on January 30, 2026, the Supreme Court of India unequivocally held that menstrual health and access to menstrual hygiene management (MHM) measures in schools are integral to the Right to Life and Dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by Dr. Jaya Thakur, which highlighted the widespread inadequacy of menstrual hygiene facilities in schools across India.

A Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan underscored that the absence of proper menstrual hygiene infrastructure subjects adolescent girls to stigma, humiliation, exclusion, and avoidable suffering, thereby violating their constitutional rights.

Constitutional and Legal Significance

The Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) by firmly embedding menstrual dignity, bodily autonomy, and privacy within its scope. It observed that dignity cannot remain an abstract principle and must manifest through real-world conditions that allow individuals—especially school-going girls—to live without humiliation.

The judgment also strengthens the substantive content of Article 21A (Right to Education) by recognizing that menstrual poverty and lack of facilities create gender-specific barriers that undermine girls’ access to education. Forcing girls to choose between dignity and education, the Court held, is neither just nor equitable.

Further, the ruling linked the absence of MHM facilities to violations of:

• Right to Privacy
• Bodily Autonomy
• Equality in Educational Access

Key Observations of the Court

The Supreme Court noted that in the absence of safe and hygienic menstrual management:

• Girls are compelled to remain absent from school, or
• Resort to unsafe practices, both of which undermine dignity and bodily autonomy.

The Court emphasized that menstrual poverty disproportionately affects adolescent girls, limiting their ability to participate in education on equal footing with male students or peers who can afford sanitary products. The long-term consequences of disrupted primary and secondary education, the Bench observed, are profound and irreversible.

Importantly, the Court clarified that menstrual hygiene is not merely a sanitation issue, but one that directly concerns autonomy, decisional freedom, and dignity.

Binding Directions Issued by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court issued pan-India mandatory directions applicable to both government and private schools, in urban and rural areas, including:

1. Infrastructure Requirements

• • Functional, gender-segregated toilets in all schools.
  • Availability of water and hygienic disposal mechanisms.

2. Access to Sanitary Products

• • Free-of-cost oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins.
  • Preferably provided within toilet premises via sanitary napkin vending machines.

3. Establishment of ‘MHM Corners’

• • Schools must set up dedicated Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM) corners.
  • These must include spare innerwear, uniforms, disposable bags, and emergency materials.

4. Accountability under the RTE Act

• • Government schools failing to comply will attract state accountability under Section 19 of the Right to Education Act.
  • Private schools may face de-recognition and penal consequences for non-compliance.

Role of Men and Sensitisation

In a progressive and socially significant observation, the Court devoted a section to “Men in Menstruation”, stressing the need to:

• Educate male teachers and students about the biological reality of menstruation.
• Prevent harassment, stigma, invasive questioning, or embarrassment faced by menstruating students.

This approach recognizes that menstrual dignity cannot be achieved through infrastructure alone, but requires systemic sensitisation and attitudinal change.

Broader Implications

This judgment marks a critical shift from welfare-based approaches to a rights-based framework for menstrual health. It aligns with:

• Gender justice
• Inclusive education
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 4 and SDG 5)

By constitutionalizing menstrual health, the Supreme Court has placed a non-negotiable obligation on the State to ensure that biological realities do not translate into social exclusion or educational disadvantage.

Conclusion

The ruling is a watershed moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It firmly establishes that menstrual dignity is not a privilege, but a fundamental right, and that education systems must adapt to biological realities rather than penalise them. By linking menstrual health to dignity, autonomy, and education, the Supreme Court has laid down a transformative framework for gender-sensitive governance in India.