Priti Kumari
The Supreme Court of India recently rejected a plea seeking mandatory nationwide menstrual leave. The rationale provided by the Bench was that such a mandate could inadvertently hinder women’s employment, discourage corporate hiring, and ultimately damage career growth. At first glance, this reasoning might appear protective. However, in a society largely structured by patriarchal norms, decisions concerning the lives of marginalized genders are often preemptively made by men at the top of the social hierarchy. Societal justifications are then conveniently formulated after the fact to maintain the status quo. The reasoning behind this recent judicial stance feels like a direct continuation of this very legacy. It assumes that the corporate ecosystem is a fragile entity incapable of accommodating biological realities, choosing instead to penalize women for their bodies.
To understand the present dynamics, we must critically examine our cultural past. Historically, menstruating women were barred from entering the kitchen or the temple, forbidden from wearing new clothes, and subjected to absurd restrictions regarding household items. These practices are not merely traditional quirks. They are deeply rooted in the Brahmanical concepts of purity and pollution, designed to systematically isolate and control women. When women finally began questioning the logic of these exclusionary tactics, the societal narrative underwent a strategic pivot. The explanation shifted from one of impurity to one of care. Women were suddenly told that these rules existed simply to allow them to “rest.”
This shift was an indirect, seemingly benevolent way to enforce a restriction. Time and again, this narrative of protection has been manipulated by dominant systems whenever required. It functions in ways that benefit those in power rather than the women it claims to protect. I used to think that whatever reasoning is provided, at least homemakers were afforded a moment of rest. I will even admit to using these societal norms as a convenient excuse in my teenage years so that my mother would not ask me to clean the household temple. However, reading the news of the Supreme Court’s decision brings the danger of this old narrative into sharp focus. The guise of benevolence masks a systemic refusal to create genuinely inclusive spaces.
The old excuse of restricting women for their own good has simply evolved to fit the modern capitalist workplace. Today, the establishment advises against demanding menstrual leave because it might invite corporate backlash and result in job losses. The underlying assumption here is deeply flawed and telling. It suggests that the systemic infrastructure, or perhaps our male colleagues, simply would not be able to handle the pressure of our absence for one day a month. This exposes a harsh reality. The modern workplace was designed by men, for men. The standard workweek and productivity metrics assume a biological constant that does not exist for half the workforce. Instead of demanding that the workplace evolve to accommodate diverse biological needs, the judiciary has effectively asked women to assimilate into a male-centric model or risk losing their livelihoods.
Furthermore, the argument that menstrual leave will make women unemployable relies on a logic that prioritizes relentless extraction over human well-being. It frames biological functions as liabilities. When policies fail to acknowledge menstruation, women are forced to mask their realities. Millions of working women consume heavy painkillers and push through severe cramps, endometriosis, or PCOS symptoms just to appear “professional” according to a standard that was never built for them. If a system cannot sustain the ethical accommodation of its workers, it is the system that requires reform, not the workers who must endure in silence. True equity does not mean treating everyone exactly the same. It means providing the necessary accommodations so everyone can participate fully and fairly.
Globally, the conversation is already shifting. Countries like Spain have already codified menstrual leave into law, proving that modern economies can indeed function while respecting women’s health. Yet, in India, we are still trapped in a cycle of paternalistic policy-making that fears corporate inconvenience more than it values gender justice.
We do not even have to look to Western nations for a functional counter-example. I hail from Bihar, a state frequently labelled as “backward” or burdened with the “BIMARU” tag in mainstream metropolitan discourse. Yet, Bihar introduced two days of period leave back in 1992. Whether driven by political mobilization, socialist labour movements, or a genuine recognition of women’s health needs at the time, Bihar identified a real problem and established a functional precedent. For over three decades, women in Bihar’s government services have utilized this leave without collapsing the state machinery. Decades later, the rest of the supposedly progressive nation has yet to take notes. The dismissal of this precedent highlights an arrogant oversight by those who dictate national policy from positions of privilege.
More often than not, when men make decisions on behalf of women, they are entirely disconnected from the lived realities and genuine struggles of our gender. Instead, they are rooted in the arbitrary reasoning of the dominant population segment that seeks to maintain its own structural ease under the guise of protecting ours. We cannot achieve a truly inclusive society if our highest institutions continue to validate policies rooted in fear and corporate convenience rather than justice and equity. True progress requires policies shaped by those who actually live the experience. Until we dismantle these patriarchal frameworks and stop framing fundamental biological needs as occupational hazards, the narrative of “protection” remains nothing more than a pathetic state of affairs.
~~~
Priti Kumari is a civil engineering graduate from the Punjab Engineering College and a former Senior Analyst at I-PAC. She is interested in dialogues on governance, systemic inequalities, and gender justice.
