The Supreme Court has given States and Union Territories a final opportunity to explain how they are implementing its directions on menstrual health, warning that non-compliance could trigger contempt proceedings against the concerned Chief Secretaries.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan expressed concern over the failure of several States and Union Territories to respond to the Centre’s requests for information on the steps taken to enforce the Court’s directions.
The Court made it clear that it would not allow its recognition of menstrual health as a fundamental right to remain a declaration without practical consequences.
“If what we have said in the judgment is only going to remain on paper, how is the Union, States/UTs going to give effect to this fundamental right?” the Bench asked.
It added that the judgment was intended to protect young girls, particularly those in remote parts of the country, who are forced to miss or abandon their education because of inadequate menstrual hygiene facilities.
The Bench warned that if the Centre reported continued non-compliance at the next hearing, contempt notices would be issued to the Chief Secretaries of the States concerned.
Menstrual health recognised under Article 21
The proceedings concern the Supreme Court’s January 30 judgment, which recognised menstrual health as an integral part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The ruling directed the nationwide implementation of the Union government’s Menstrual Hygiene Policy for school-going girls and laid down mandatory requirements for both government and private schools.
Under the directions, States and Union Territories must ensure that schools have functional, gender-segregated toilets with running water, accessible toilet facilities for children with disabilities, free sanitary napkins, dedicated menstrual hygiene management corners, covered waste bins and safe disposal systems.
The Court subsequently revisited the matter on September 1, directing States and Union Territories to address identified shortcomings and submit details of the corrective measures taken.
Centre flags lack of responses
During the latest hearing, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the Bench that the Union government had taken up the matter with all States and Union Territories and sought information on compliance with the judgment.
However, several administrations had yet to provide the requested details, prompting the Court to question why they were not responding to the Centre’s communications.
The Bench directed the Union government to obtain written responses from every State and Union Territory, with particular attention to the requirements outlined in the September 1 order.
That order had criticised authorities for submitting basic statistics or simple “yes/no” responses instead of explaining the actual conditions in schools. The Court had asked States to identify the facilities that remained unavailable, explain the reasons for the gaps and specify how much time would be needed to address them.
It had also called for a gradual transition towards environmentally friendly menstrual products.
To ensure that the responses provide meaningful information, the Supreme Court said the Centre could prepare a questionnaire covering the relevant directions and circulate it to all States and Union Territories.
The underlying concern remains whether the facilities mandated by the Court are reaching the girls who need them, rather than merely appearing in official compliance reports.
The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on December 14.