SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Dr. Jaya Thakur – Petitioner
Versus
Government of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 1000 of 2022
Decided On : 30-01-2026
Key Points: - The right to education includes access to menstrual hygiene management as essential for equality, dignity, and full participation of female students (!) (!) (!) . - States must provide adequate menstrual hygiene products, gender-segregated toilets, awareness programs, and safe disposal mechanisms in all educational institutions (!) (!) (!) . - Schools must comply with norms and standards under the RTE Act, including separate toilets for boys and girls, barrier-free access, and functional handwashing facilities (!) (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition overview and context of menstrual hygiene. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. definition and significance of menstrual hygiene management. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. union of india submissions on menstrual hygiene. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. acknowledgment of gaps in implementation of menstrual hygiene policies. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. identification of legal issues for consideration. (Para 16) |
| 6. analysis of education as a fundamental human right. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. judicial recognition of the right to education. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. dignity as an essential component of the right to life. (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75) |
| 9. summary of court's conclusions and directions. (Para 172) |
| 10. directives for implementation of menstrual hygiene measures. (Para 173 , 174 , 175 , 176) |
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA & R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:-
| INDEX | |
| I. | THE CONTEXT |
| II. | THE BASICS |
| III. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES |
| i. | Submissions on behalf of the Union of India - Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 respectively |
| ii. | Submissions on behalf of the States - Respondent Nos. 4 to 39 respectively |
| IV. | ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION |
| V. | ANALYSIS |
| A. | The right to access education: A fundamental human right |
| i. | Education - an essential human right in the International Human Rights Law framework |
| ii. | Judicial recognition of education as a human right |
| B. | Substantive approach to right to equality in education under Article 14 of the Constitution |
| i. | Menstruation as a barrier to the right to access education |
| a. | Intersectionality of disability, gender, and access to education |
| C. | The right to dignified menstrual health a part of Article 21 |
| i. | The right to human dignity as a concomitant of the right to life |
| ii. | The right to privacy and decisional autonomy |
| iii. | The right to menstrual health as a facet of the right to life |
| D. | The right to participation and the equality of opportunity respectively as constitutional guarantees under Article 14 |
| i. | Lack of menstrual hygiene measures as a barrier in exercising the right to participate in school |
| ii. | Lack of menstrual hygiene management measures impede the equality of opportunity |
| a. | Accessibility of menstrual hygiene management measures – a step towards Social Justice |
| E. | The fundamental right to education under Article 21A |
| i. | Right to free and compulsory education under the RTE Act |
| a. | Management of menstrual hygiene as a financial barrier under Section 3 of the RTE Act |
| b. | Menstrual management measures as mandatory “norms and standards” for schools under Section 19 of the RTE Act |
| F. | Role of Men in Menstruation |
| VI. | CONCLUSION |
| VII. | DIRECTIONS |
“A period should end a sentence – not a girl’s education.”
1. We are tempted to preface our judgment with the words of Melissa Berton, an American educator, social activist, and producer. The statement articulated above resonate with an undiminishing force in the present petition as well. The issues that have unfolded before us echo the very same judicial disquiet. Even with the passage of time, the challenges that beset a girl child’s education persist in much the same form.
I. THE CONTEXT
2. The petitioner, who is a social worker, has filed the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in public interest seeking appropriate directions to the respondents – the Union of India, the States and Union Territories respectively to ensure providing of (i) free sanitary pads to every female child studying between classes 6 & 12; and (ii) a separate toilet for females in all government aided and residential schools. Apart from this, certain other consequential reliefs have also been sought for in public interest inc
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India
Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
Mohini Jain (Miss) v. State of Karnataka
Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
Joseph Shine v. Union of India
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (EWS Reservation)
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India
Jane Kaushik v. Union of India
Rajiv Raturi v. Union of India
Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services
Rajive Raturi v. Union of India
Common Cause v. Union of India
K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9 J.) v. Union of India
Common Cause v. Union of India
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India
Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India
Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India
Devika Biswas v. Union of India
Independent Thought v. Union of India
Society For Enlightenment & Voluntary Action v. Union of India
Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. Distt. Development Officer, Dahod
State of A.P. v. P.B. Vijaykumar
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India (P) Ltd.
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India
State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale
Indian Medical Assn. v. Union of India
Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra
Devesh Sharma v. Union of India
Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India
State of T.N. v. K. Shyam Sunder
Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India
Devesh Sharma v. Union of India
Justice for All v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Master Manjunath v. Union of India
State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty
The right to education encompasses access to menstrual hygiene management as essential for ensuring equality, dignity, and full participation of female students in educational settings.
The right of girl children to live with dignity includes access to basic necessities such as sanitary napkins and facilities for their safe and hygienic use, and the State has a constitutional obliga....
The Amendment Rules exempting private unaided schools from admitting 25% disadvantaged children based on proximity to government schools violate the RTE Act and Article 21-A, as they impose condition....
Hijab restrictions – Right to wear hijab in School – Denial of education - Wearing a hijab should be simply a matter of Choice - It may or may not be a matter of essential religious practice, but it ....
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act mandates that private unaided schools comply with all provisions of the Act, including maintaining educational standards and ensuring opport....
The right to clean and safe public toilets for women is essential for dignity and health, recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Right to receive primary education in mother tongue forms part of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and obligates States to implement constitutional and policy mandates for incl....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.