Karnataka HC Recalls Stay on Menstrual Leave; Hearing on Interim Stay Tomorrow

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday decided to hear the State government tomorrow on the legality of its menstrual leave notification, after a day marked by swift procedural developments that saw an interim stay first imposed and later recalled.

In the morning session, the court had stayed the State’s November, 2025 notification which directed all registered industrial establishments to provide women employees aged between 18 and 52 one paid day of menstrual leave every month. As per the notification, such leave cannot be carried forward, does not require medical certification, and is applicable to permanent, contract and outsourced workers.

The government described the measure as a workplace welfare initiative aimed at improving female labour participation, acknowledging menstrual health concerns and reducing absenteeism caused by unmanaged pain or discomfort.

The stay in the matter came at the instance of the Bengaluru Hotels Association and a private manufacturing firm which argued that the government could not impose such a requirement through an executive order.

They submitted that statutes such as the Factories Act, 1948 and the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 already govern leave entitlements and working conditions and none of these laws authorise the government to unilaterally introduce menstrual leave without a legislative amendment.

The petitioners maintained that the notification amounted to creating a new statutory right through executive action, which they said was impermissible.

They also contended that the order was issued without conducting consultations with employers or examining sector specific feasibility, particularly in industries operating on shift based systems or with limited staffing flexibility.

The interim stay immediately created uncertainty for thousands of women workers who had welcomed the policy as a recognition of menstrual wellness as a legitimate workplace consideration, and who were unsure whether the notification remained enforceable.

It also prompted questions about whether the State would need to seek legislative backing if the stay continued, especially since menstrual leave, although discussed in some policy circles, has not yet been incorporated in central labour codes.

In the afternoon, Advocate General mentioned the matter before the bench and sought recall of the stay, stating that the government had not been heard before the interim order was passed.

The State briefly argued that the notification was issued in exercise of its power to frame welfare oriented conditions of employment and that it complemented rather than conflicted with existing statutory frameworks. It stressed that the Constitution obligates governments to promote just and humane work conditions and that menstrual leave was a reasonable welfare measure grounded in public health considerations and evidence of productivity impacts.

After hearing the State, the High Court recalled the stay and clarified that the notification would remain in operation while the court examined the matter.

Petitioner's Stand

The petitioners argue that the State’s notification intrudes into a domain that should be left to the internal administrative policies of individual establishments, stating that matters such as special leave frameworks require organisation specific evaluation of workforce structures, financial constraints and operational needs rather than being imposed uniformly through an executive direction.

They also question why the State government has not implemented a similar menstrual leave policy for its own women employees, calling the distinction discriminatory and asserting that it is arbitrary to compel private establishments to absorb the financial and operational impact of the rule while exempting government departments from the same obligation.

The petitioners further argue that compulsory menstrual leave is regressive in nature and may, in practice, harm the employability of women in the private sector by reinforcing stereotypes about biological limitations. According to them, the measure risks functioning as a form of benevolent sexism that signals women require special accommodation, thereby undermining the principle of equality in the workplace.

They contend that even though the notification appears positive on the surface, it may ultimately foster gender bias and contribute to discriminatory hiring or workplace practices.

Case Title: Bengaluru Hotels Association and Anr v. State of Karnataka

Date of hearing: 09.12.2025

Bench: Justice Jyoti M.