SCBA Asks Supreme Court to Frame National ‘Menstrual Dignity’ Guidelines After Alleged ‘Period Checks’

New Delhi – The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has initiated a significant public interest litigation before the Supreme Court, seeking judicial intervention to protect the menstrual dignity of women and girls in workplaces and educational institutions. The writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, calls for the framing of comprehensive, binding national guidelines following shocking reports of women being subjected to humiliating "period checks."

The petition, SCBA v. Union of India & Anr. , urges the apex court to address a systemic issue that it argues is a gross violation of fundamental rights. The SCBA has requested directions for the Union Government and the State of Haryana to conduct a thorough inquiry into a specific incident at Maharashi Dayanand University, Rohtak, and to establish a robust legal framework to prevent the recurrence of such degrading practices nationwide.

---

The Catalyst: An Egregious Violation of Dignity

The immediate trigger for the SCBA's petition is a deeply disturbing incident that allegedly occurred on October 26 at Maharashi Dayanand University. According to the plea, which references a written complaint filed with the university's Registrar, three female sanitation workers were called for duty on a Sunday to prepare for a visit from the Haryana Governor.

The workers, who were feeling unwell due to menstruation, were allegedly instructed by supervisors to work faster. When they cited their physical discomfort, they were not only disbelieved but were allegedly coerced into providing proof. The petition details the humiliating demand made by the supervisors:

"It is most disturbing that the supervisors appeared to have demanded photographic proof from the workers by asking them to send photos of their sanitary pads. The workers were verbally abused, humiliated and pressured until they were compelled to take photographs in the washroom."

The SCBA contends that this act strips women of their fundamental dignity and highlights the vulnerability of unorganized workers who often lack formal grievance redressal mechanisms. The petition asserts that such incidents are not isolated, but symptomatic of a larger, pervasive problem across various institutional settings.

To substantiate this claim, the SCBA cited another recent incident reported by The Hindu , where schoolgirls from classes 5 to 10 at a private school in Thane, Maharashtra, were allegedly made to strip to check if they were menstruating. The school authorities had reportedly found blood stains in a toilet and, in an attempt to identify the student, subjected numerous girls to an invasive and traumatic inspection.

---

Legal Framework and Constitutional Imperatives

The SCBA's petition is built on a strong foundation of constitutional law and established Supreme Court precedents. The core argument is that these "period checks" constitute a direct assault on the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which encompasses the right to life, personal liberty, dignity, privacy, and bodily integrity.

The plea avers:

"The Petitioner humbly submits that these incidents of women and girls being subjected to invasive and degrading checks in various institutional settings to check whether they are menstruating is in gross violation of their right to life, dignity, privacy and bodily integrity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

The SCBA has strategically invoked a series of landmark judgments to bolster its case for judicial intervention:

• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): The petition leans heavily on the nine-judge bench ruling that affirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right. The SCBA argues that forcing a woman to reveal her menstrual status, let alone provide photographic proof, is a blatant breach of her informational and bodily privacy.

• Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009): This judgment, which upheld a woman's right to make autonomous reproductive choices, is cited to reinforce the principle of decisional and bodily autonomy. The right to control one's own body without coercion or intrusion is central to the SCBA's argument.

• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): The petition draws a direct parallel to the Vishaka case, where the Supreme Court, in the absence of legislation, laid down binding guidelines to combat sexual harassment at the workplace. The SCBA is urging the Court to adopt a similar role and formulate "Menstrual Dignity Guidelines" to fill the existing legal vacuum.

• In Re: Rape and Murder of Trainee Doctor in Kolkata (2024): Citing this recent ruling, the SCBA highlights the Court's acknowledgment of how entrenched patriarchal biases create unsafe environments for women professionals. The petition quotes the Court's observation that “preserving safe conditions of work is central to realising equality of opportunity,” arguing that menstrual dignity is an indispensable component of a safe and equitable workplace.

---

A Call for Comprehensive Guidelines

The SCBA's prayer is not limited to seeking justice for the specific victims in Haryana. It calls for a systemic solution to a deep-rooted problem. The association has urged the Supreme Court to evolve a set of binding guidelines, akin to the Vishaka Guidelines , to ensure the rights of menstruating women and girls are protected across all workplaces (public and private) and educational institutions.

The proposed guidelines would aim to: 1. Prohibit Invasive Checks: Explicitly forbid any form of invasive or degrading checks or demands for proof of menstruation. 2. Establish Protocols: Mandate clear, respectful protocols for managing menstruation-related leave or requests for accommodation in workplaces and schools. 3. Promote Awareness: Require institutions to conduct regular awareness and sensitization programs for all staff, management, and students to destigmatize menstruation and promote a culture of respect. 4. Create Grievance Mechanisms: Institutionalize confidential and effective grievance redressal mechanisms where women and girls can report violations without fear of reprisal.

The petition, drawn by Advocates Sadhana Madhavan and Karishma Maria, settled by Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, and filed through Advocate on Record Pragya Baghel, represents a crucial step towards legally recognizing and protecting menstrual dignity as an integral facet of gender equality and fundamental rights in India. The outcome of this case could set a new precedent, compelling institutions across the country to fundamentally reassess and reform their policies concerning women's health and dignity.