Supreme Court Criticizes States for Failing to Implement Menstrual Hygiene Directives in Schools
The Supreme Court of India has recently expressed dissatisfaction with several states and Union Territories (UTs) regarding their failure to adequately implement the Court’s previous instructions aimed at improving menstrual hygiene facilities in schools. This critique arose from the ongoing case, Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India and Others, where the Bench consisting of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan voiced concerns over the lack of genuine compliance with the directives.
On September 1, the Court reviewed compliance reports submitted by various states and UTs, finding that many had approached the matter superficially, providing responses that were either generic or purely statistical. The Court stated, “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.”
Earlier, on January 30, the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution to encompass the right to menstrual health. Consequently, the Court mandated the nationwide implementation of the Union government’s Menstrual Hygiene Policy. This policy encompasses several requirements for schools, including gender-segregated toilets with running water, sanitary napkin accessibility, menstrual hygiene management (MHM) corners, and adequate waste disposal systems.
Following a request for updated compliance reports on May 25, the Union government submitted a consolidated affidavit on August 31. The Court acknowledged some progress but noted that many states claimed full compliance despite evident deficiencies, such as the absence of gender-segregated toilets, handwashing facilities, or sanitary-napkin vending machines in all schools. Additionally, the data provided by Punjab was found to be illegible.
The Court criticized states that declared policy changes without demonstrating their impact on students, stating, “It is one thing to say that policy exists, it is another thing that it is reaching the beneficiaries.” To gain a better understanding of the situation, the Court directed District Education Officers (DEOs) to form teams of teachers to conduct surprise inspections in schools. These teams are tasked with assessing the availability of necessary facilities and products related to menstrual health.
More Read
The states and UTs were also instructed to provide insights from inspections already conducted and to include anonymous feedback from students. Future compliance reports should highlight existing gaps rather than past achievements, as the Court emphasized, “The responses shall now reflect the gaps instead of what has already been achieved.”
Furthermore, the Court requested detailed explanations for schools lacking functional toilets with water connections and privacy. It also sought clarification on the appointment of cleaners for school toilets, noting that some states relied on unspecified internal arrangements or provided no information. States were asked to articulate how they ensure the maintenance of functional school toilets.
In response to environmental concerns raised by the Indian Compostable Polymer Association, the Court modified its earlier direction requiring oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins. Schools are now directed to offer free biodegradable, biocompatible, and compostable sanitary napkins, with state and UT governments responsible for their safety and effectiveness. Additionally, governments were encouraged to promote sustainable menstrual products, such as reusable napkins, menstrual cups, and period underwear.
More Read
The case is scheduled for further hearing on September 29. Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, along with a team of advocates, represented Dr. Jaya Thakur, the petitioner who initiated the landmark January 30 ruling.
