The Karnataka High Court is currently examining a set of petitions challenging a government notification issued by the Government of Karnataka that mandates one paid day of menstrual leave per month for women employees in registered industrial establishments. The challenged notification seeks to extend the benefit to permanent, contractual, and outsourced women workers employed under labour laws such as the Factories Act, the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, the Plantations Labour Act, the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, and the Motor Transport Workers Act.
The petitions were filed by Bengaluru Hotels Association and the management of Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems Limited. The petitioners argue that there is no explicit provision in the labour statutes governing these establishments that authorises the government to mandate menstrual leave through an executive notification. According to them, these laws already prescribe a comprehensive leave and working-conditions framework, including leave with wages, weekly holidays, and casual leave. They submit that leave policies are matters internal to employers’ human-resource management and cannot be changed by a blanket executive directive. The petition further claims that the notification violates principles of natural justice, as there was no prior stakeholder consultation or preliminary notice. The petitioners also warn that compulsory menstrual leave could impose additional financial and operational burdens on employers — especially in labour-intensive sectors such as hospitality — potentially leading to serious civil and financial consequences.
On December 9, 2025, a Single-Judge bench of the High Court, led by Justice Jyoti M, initially granted an interim stay on the notification. The Court asked the government to file a statement of objections and indicated that the matter would be relisted for a full hearing after the court’s winter vacation. While issuing the interim order, the bench noted that there was no indication that the government had consulted employers before issuing the menstrual-leave directive, a fact that weighed against immediate implementation.
However, hours later, the same High Court bench recalled the stay after hearing submissions from the State’s Advocate General, who urged the Court not to block the policy without giving the government an opportunity to present its case. Consequently, the Court scheduled a detailed hearing, signaling its decision to thoroughly examine the challenge.
In its statement of objection, the Government defended the policy as a progressive and welfare-oriented measure. It contended that the initiative aims to create a more inclusive, supportive and equitable work environment for women, helping them manage health issues during menstrual cycles and enabling them to work with dignity. The Government argued that the policy aligns with constitutional provisions promoting equality and non-discrimination, invoking Articles related to equal protection, gender equality, and the State’s duty to ensure welfare, thereby characterising the order as beneficial legislation rather than a challengeable executive fiat. The Government further maintained that the notification was issued after recommendations by technical experts and consultations, and said that menstrual leave is a valid form of positive action — not discriminatory — under constitutional law.
The High Court labelled the matter “of public importance” and committed to a comprehensive hearing. As of now, the government’s menstrual–leave directive remains in force — but its long-term enforceability will depend on the High Court’s forthcoming judgment.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.