Menstruation Should Not Be A Topic That Is Only Shared In Hushed Whispers; Educate Boys About It: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, while issuing a comprehensive set of directives to ensure free access to sanitary pads and separate, functional toilets in all schools across the country, has also held that it is crucial that boys are educated about the biological reality of menstruation. 

The Court said that a male student, unsensitized towards the issue, may harass a menstruating girl child, which may discourage her from attending school.

The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan ordered, "Menstruation should not be a topic that is only shared in hushed whispers. It is crucial that boys are educated about the biological reality of menstruation. A male student, unsensitized towards the issue, may harass a menstruating girl child which may discourage her from attending school...In this context, the responsibility weighs even heavier on the male teachers. They must be sensitized to the needs of a girl child. For instance, a request to the restroom or the sudden need to leave the classroom must be treated with sensitivity rather than straight dismissal or invasive questioning. To put briefly, we would say, ignorance breeds insensitivity, knowledge breeds empathy."

Advocate Varun Thakur appeared for the Petitioner, while ASG Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Archana Pathak Dave, Sr. AAG Amit Anand Tiwari and AAG Vaibhav Srivastava appeared for the Respondents.

The Court was hearing a plea seeking direction to the Centre to ensure free sanitary pads and separate toilets for girls in classes 6-12 in Government and aided schools.

The Court held, "All that we are trying to convey is that, men have a multifaceted role in menstrual hygiene and awareness for school-going adolescent girls. On one hand, male teachers can integrate accurate, stigma-free information into lessons. At the same time, the staff would be responsive towards maintaining cleanliness and hygiene in the toilets. On the other hand, peers and classmates would be empathetic and helpful."

The Court also emphasized on the role that young boys and male teachers play in the lives of adolescent girl students. The Court held that if the spirit of Article 21A and the RTE Act is to be achieved in its fullest sense, it would not be sufficient that merely gender-segregated toilets or sanitary napkins are provided. The Court said that the absence of menstrual hygiene facilities in schools is not the only barrier that impedes education, but rather it is only half the problem. More often than not, the environment within which the girl child is acquiring education is equally impeding, if not a greater barrier, it added.

"A school may have adequate facilities for menstrual hygiene, but an unsupportive, rather hostile and stigmatized environment would render them of no use. The environment at school is not a monolith of females, it consists of young boys, male teachers, and male staff. Until the whole ecosystem is sterilized of the stigma associated with menstruation, the infrastructural efforts would remain underutilized", the Court added.

Further, the Court also highlighted that a girl child’s expectation to manage her menstruation in privacy with dignity is legitimate. In such circumstances, the lack of resources cannot be permitted to govern her autonomy over her own body. There is no doubt that she possesses the right to decide how and where menstrual care is carried out, and the liberty to exercise such care, free from coercive practices and social restrictions, the Court added.

The Court held, "It is apposite to understand that menstrual hygiene management is not confined to sanitation, it includes bodily autonomy and decisional freedom. The denial of adequate facilities, appropriate sanitary products, or privacy effectively compels a girl child to manage her body in a manner dictated by circumstance rather than choice. Autonomy can be meaningfully exercised only when girl children have access to functional toilets, adequate menstrual products, availability of water, and hygienic mechanisms for disposal."

Furthermore, the Court observed that to secure the right to health is not merely a right enshrined under Article 21 but also a duty on the State under Article 47 of the Constitution. It said that Article 47 enjoins the State to improve public health as its primary duty.

"No doubt the Government is rendering this obligation by providing MHM measures but in order to make it meaningful, it has to be reach of the beneficiaries. Thus, it is only then the objectives of the State can be realized. As is always said, the rights conferred on citizens and non-citizens are not merely individual or personal rights. They have a large social and political content, because the objectives of the Constitution cannot be otherwise realized", the Court said. 

The Court concluded, "Before we part, we would like to say something on the issue we have addressed. This pronouncement is not just for the stakeholders of the legal system, it is also meant to be for the classroom where girls hesitate to ask for help, it is for the teachers who want to help but are restrained due to lack of resources, and it is for the parents who may not realize the impact of their silence, and for the society to establish that progress is measured how we protect the most vulnerable. We wish to communicate to every girl child, who might have become a victim of absenteeism because her body was perceived as a burden, that the fault is not hers. These words must travel beyond the courtroom, law review reports, and reach the everyday conscience of society at large."

Previously, the Apex Court had directed the States, which are yet to file their response as instructed in the previous order, to submit their respective status reports in the plea seeking awareness on menstrual hygiene in schools. The bench has listed the matter for further hearing in November so that it can come up with a comprehensive policy on menstrual hygiene in schools. While passing the directions, the bench also warned States that if still they do not comply with the order, the Court will have to take recourse to the 'coercive arm of law'.

Cause Title: Dr Jaya Thakur v. Government of India and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 97]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Varun Thakur, Advocate, Deepak Goel, Advocate, Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Advocate, Ramkaran, Advocate, Shraddha Saran, Advocate, and M.K. Ravi, Advocate.

Respondents: Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., Vaibhav Srivastava, A.A.G., Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G. and AORs including Amrish Kumar, Manish Kumar, Ankita Sharma, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Abhimanyu Tewari, Swati Ghildiyal, Sugandha Anand, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrinal Gopal Elker, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, K. Enatoli Sema, Karan Sharma, Akshat Kumar, Sabarish Subramanian, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Shuvodeep Roy, Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, and Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Veer Vikrant Singh, Rohit Pandey, Shradha Deshmukh, Ravi Shanker Jha, Arjun D Singh, Prerna Singh, Dhruv Yadav, Eliza Barr, Prashant Bhagwati, Devyani Bhatt, Neha Singh, Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Abhimanyu Singh, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Chhavi Khandelwal, Ravindra Chingle, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Karun Sharma, Indrajit Prasad, Rajkumari Divyasana, T.K. Nayak, Marbiang Khongwir, Daniel Lyngdoh, Upendra Mishra, P.S. Negi, Limayinla Jamir, Amit Kumar Singh, Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Anubha Dhulia, Devyani Gupta, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Tanvi Anand, C Kranthi Kumar, Saushriya Havelia A, Danish Saifi, Aniket Singh, Srija Choudhury, Raman Yadav, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Piyush Beriwal, Kanu Agrawal, Vatsal Joshi, Harish Pandey, Varun Chugh, Krishna Kant Dubey, Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Sansriti Pathak, and Apoorv Kurup.

Click here to read/download the Judgment