The Supreme Court has unequivocally recognized that access to menstrual hygiene management in schools is not a welfare measure but a constitutionally guaranteed component of the right to education. This landmark judgment transforms the legal landscape by anchoring sanitary pad provision and gender-segregated sanitation in the fundamental rights framework, ensuring that no girl is forced to choose between dignity and learning.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a social worker, filed a public interest writ petition under Article 32 seeking mandatory provision of free sanitary pads and separate, clean, functional toilets for girl students in classes 6 to 12 across all government and aided schools in India. The petition highlighted systemic barriers - menstrual poverty, lack of hygiene infrastructure, and social stigma - that lead to high absenteeism and dropout rates among adolescent girls, particularly from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.
Procedural History
- 2022: Writ petition filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32.
- 2023: Court directed Union and States to file affidavits detailing existing schemes and implementation status.
- 2024: Multiple States submitted detailed reports on MHM initiatives; several States, including Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Delhi, did not file affidavits.
- 2026: Judgment delivered by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan after extensive hearings and review of national and international legal frameworks.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought directions to:
- Provide free sanitary pads to all girl students in classes 6 - 12.
- Ensure separate, clean, and functional toilets for girls in all government and aided schools.
- Appoint cleaners for toilet maintenance.
- Implement a three-stage awareness program on menstrual health, hygiene, and safe disposal.
- Ensure dignified disposal mechanisms such as incinerators or deep burial pits.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the unavailability of menstrual hygiene management measures - free sanitary products and gender-segregated sanitation facilities - constitutes a violation of the fundamental rights to education under Article 21A, equality under Article 14, dignity under Article 21, and reproductive health under Article 21, as read with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the substantive equality doctrine established in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India and Joseph Shine v. Union of India, arguing that formal access to education is meaningless if structural barriers like menstrual poverty exclude girls from participation. Citing Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the petitioner emphasized that menstrual health is inseparable from bodily autonomy and dignity. The petitioners invoked Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka and Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. to assert that education under Article 21A must be meaningful and continuous. They further contended that Section 3 of the RTE Act prohibits any financial barrier to education, and sanitary pads constitute such a barrier for economically vulnerable girls. Reference was made to Section 19 of the RTE Act and its Schedule, which mandates separate toilets, arguing that this includes functional, clean, and gender-specific facilities.
For the Respondent
The Union and States acknowledged the existence of schemes like Jan Aushadhi, Samagra Shiksha, and State-specific initiatives providing subsidized or free pads and toilets. They argued that existing policy frameworks were sufficient and that implementation was a matter of administrative capacity, not constitutional mandate. They contended that the Court should not interfere in policy execution and that the issue was better addressed through existing welfare mechanisms. Some States claimed that providing free pads would set a precedent for other biological needs, creating an unsustainable fiscal burden.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive analysis of constitutional provisions, international obligations, and statutory mandates to conclude that menstrual hygiene is not peripheral to education but foundational to its realization.
The Court began by affirming that Article 21A and the RTE Act guarantee not merely enrollment but meaningful, continuous, and dignified education. It held that the term "free" in Section 3 of the RTE Act extends beyond tuition fees to include any expense that prevents a child from attending school. The cost of sanitary products, which many families cannot afford, constitutes a direct financial barrier under Section 3(2). The Court observed:
"When a girl is forced to miss school for five days each month because she cannot afford a sanitary pad, the State has not merely failed to provide a product - it has failed to provide education."
The Court then examined Section 19 of the RTE Act and its Schedule, which mandates "separate toilets for boys and girls" as a mandatory norm for school recognition. It interpreted "separate toilets" not as a mere physical distinction but as a requirement for functional, clean, safe, and dignified facilities with water, locks, and disposal mechanisms. The Court distinguished between the existence of a toilet and its usability, citing Radha Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan and Deepak Rana v. State of Uttarakhand to emphasize that structural compliance without operational functionality is a constitutional failure.
The Court grounded its reasoning in Article 21, holding that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity, which encompasses bodily autonomy and menstrual health. Citing Puttaswamy, it affirmed that decisional privacy includes the right to manage menstruation without stigma or coercion. The Court rejected the notion that menstruation is a private matter outside the State’s purview, stating:
"The State cannot claim privacy as a shield to avoid its duty when the private reality of menstruation becomes a public barrier to education."
The Court also invoked Article 14 and the doctrine of substantive equality, holding that treating all students equally while ignoring the biological and socio-economic realities of girls perpetuates systemic discrimination. It relied on Jane Kaushik v. Union of India and Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India to affirm that affirmative measures are constitutionally required to dismantle structural barriers.
The Court further held that the failure to provide menstrual hygiene measures violates the right to participation under Article 14, as it excludes girls from full engagement in school life. It referenced international instruments - CEDAW, CRC, and ICESCR - to reinforce India’s treaty obligations to ensure non-discrimination in education.
Finally, the Court rejected the State’s argument that existing schemes suffice, noting that policy fragmentation, inconsistent implementation, and lack of accountability render them ineffective. It emphasized that constitutional rights cannot be contingent on administrative goodwill.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Supreme Court held that the right to free and compulsory education under Article 21A and the RTE Act includes the mandatory provision of free sanitary pads and separate, clean, functional, and well-maintained toilets for girl students in classes 6 to 12 in all government and aided schools. The Court further held that the absence of these measures violates Articles 14, 21, and 21A, and constitutes a failure to meet mandatory norms under Section 19 of the RTE Act.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Free Sanitary Pads Are Not a Welfare Benefit but a Constitutional Right
- Practitioners must now argue that any policy or scheme providing only subsidized pads is constitutionally inadequate.
- Schools cannot require parents to purchase pads as a condition of attendance.
- Litigation can be initiated against States or schools failing to distribute pads, invoking Section 3 of the RTE Act as a justiciable right.
- Budgetary constraints cannot be invoked as a defense; the State’s obligation is immediate and non-negotiable.
Separate Toilets Must Be Functional, Not Just Exist
- Merely having a separate toilet is insufficient; it must have water, locks, cleaning supplies, and safe disposal.
- Schools without functioning toilets risk de-recognition under Section 18 of the RTE Act.
- Maintenance responsibility lies with the School Management Committee and local authorities under Article 243(G).
- Courts may issue contempt proceedings against authorities for non-compliance with this judgment.
Awareness Programs Are Integral to Educational Equity
- The Court’s directive for a three-stage awareness program is not advisory but mandatory.
- Schools must integrate menstrual health into curriculum and teacher training.
- Failure to conduct awareness sessions may be challenged as perpetuating stigma and violating substantive equality.
- NGOs and civil society may now file compliance petitions to enforce this component.
