Supreme Court Modifies Sanitary Napkin Order: Schools Must Now Use Compostable, Not Oxo-Biodegradable Pads
Supreme Court modified its own menstrual hygiene management order after an environmental body warned that the earlier material shed microplastics, and pulled up States for filing compliance data that did not add up
Supreme Court of India, which passed the order modifying its sanitary napkin material directive on September 1, 2026
The Supreme Court has withdrawn its own year-old requirement that schools across the country supply oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins, and replaced it with a mandate for biodegradable, biocompatible and compostable products, after being told the earlier specification could add to the microplastic burden it was meant to reduce.
The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan passed the order on September 1, 2026, while reviewing compliance with directions issued in its main judgment of January 30, 2026 in a writ petition concerning toilets, sanitary facilities and menstrual hygiene management in schools.
What the January order had required
The Court's January 30 judgment had directed that every school, government-run or private, urban or rural, provide sanitary napkins free of cost, with a specific material standard attached. The order, reproduced in the present order, read: "All States and Union Territories shall ensure that every school, whether Government-run or privately managed, in both urban and rural areas, provides oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins manufactured in compliance with the ASTM D-6954 standards free of cost."— Para 178(II)(i), judgment dated 30.01.2026
The microplastics warning
That specification came under challenge through an interim application filed by the Indian Compostable Polymer Association, which told the Court that oxo-biodegradable napkins do not fully break down. Instead, when disposed of through landfill, deep burial, composting, pit burning or incineration, they fragment into nano- and microplastics, worsening the very pollution problem the mandate was meant to address.
The Union government, responding to the application, did not resist the point. Its affidavit told the Court: "In this regard, the Hon'ble Court may consider to direct use of biodegradable sanitary napkins which are also environment friendly."
The Court set out the distinction between the three categories of material in some detail; compostable napkins that break down fully in a controlled composting environment without leaving microplastic residue; biodegradable napkins that break down over time depending on conditions such as temperature and microbial activity; and oxo-biodegradable napkins, which are conventional plastic treated with additives that trigger fragmentation on exposure to heat, light and oxygen, but which behave like ordinary plastic when that exposure is absent, as is often the case in landfills or burial pits.
The revised direction
Weighing the material difference, the Bench substituted the earlier specification. Its operative direction now reads: "the direction in Para 178(II)(i) i.e., 'oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins manufactured in compliance with the ASTM D-6954 standards' shall be now read as 'biodegradable, biocompatible and compostable sanitary napkins in compliance with ISO 17088 read with IS 5405 standards'."
The Court went further, asking States to gradually move beyond disposable pads altogether. It recorded: "We take this opportunity to emphasize that the States shall slowly move towards more eco-friendly and scientifically validated menstrual absorbents, more particularly, biodegradable sanitary napkins, cloth-based sanitary napkins or reusable sanitary napkins, menstrual cups, period panties."
On why the switch mattered, the Bench gave two reasons: the health of the girl children using the product, and the environmental load being passed on to the next generation: "these biodegradable sanitary napkins are free from harmful chemicals, bleaching agents, synthetic fragrances which lead to long-term health risks... it reduces the environmental burden that eventually our children would inherit."
"Sustainability is an act of care for the next generation."
States pulled up over "mere formality" in reporting
Beyond the material specification, a large part of the order is devoted to how States and Union Territories reported their compliance. The Bench did not hide its dissatisfaction: "Having carefully gone through the reports by the States/UTs, we are constrained to say that we are discontent with the manner in which compliance is reported. The response by some States exhibit non-application of mind or rather mere formality."
The order then goes state by state, flagging where the numbers claimed did not match the numbers reported. Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Lakshadweep and Puducherry claimed toilet saturation even though fewer toilets were accessible to children with special needs than the total number of schools. Tamil Nadu claimed saturation despite gender-segregated toilets numbering far fewer than its total schools, while Assam's figures for functional handwashing facilities with soap and water did not match its total school count.
On sanitary products, Karnataka, Jammu & Kashmir, Odisha and Arunachal Pradesh claimed full coverage even though the number of schools with vending machines installed, and the number where pads were actually provided, fell well short of the total. On disposal systems, Bihar, Gujarat, Delhi, Jharkhand, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh claimed saturation despite similar shortfalls, and the Court noted that Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir had submitted internal data columns on disposal mechanisms that did not even match each other. Punjab's reports on both toilets and disposal systems were, in the Court's words, illegible.
The Bench also noted that the compliance affidavit did not disclose the number of cleaners appointed for toilet maintenance in schools; a gap the petitioner had specifically flagged, and one the Court said it saw "some logic" in.
On the broader point of policy existing on paper without reaching students, the order observed: "It is one thing to say that policy exists, it is another thing that it is reaching the beneficiaries."
Surprise inspection ordered for the next cycle
To get a more accurate picture on the ground, the Court has now directed District Education Officers to form teams of teachers to carry out surprise inspections across all schools in their jurisdiction, rather than relying solely on self-reported figures. It also asked States to change how they report going forward; instead of listing what has been achieved, the next round of affidavits must spell out the gaps that remain, the reasons for those gaps, and a timeline to close them.
"Mere declaration is not going to serve the purpose."
The Bench closed on a note pairing patience with insistence, acknowledging incremental progress while making clear that the pace was not good enough on its own: "The progress may be slow but it shall be meaningful."
The interim application filed by the Indian Compostable Polymer Association was disposed of in these terms, along with a connected writ petition. The matter has been posted for further hearing on September 29, 2026.