Sign In
By signing in or creating an account, you agree with Associated Broadcasting Company's Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
By signing in or creating an account, you agree with Associated Broadcasting Company's Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
The Government of Karnataka on Wednesday strongly defended its newly introduced menstrual leave policy before the High Court by contending that the policy is “well-considered, beneficial and fully compliant with the Constitution.” Even as the litigation mounts, the Congress-led administration in the State is preparing to accord the policy legislative backing during the ongoing Assembly session in Belagavi.
The state had formalised this policy on 12 November by issuing a government order that guarantees 12 days of paid menstrual leave annually for women employees. Karnataka has positioned this as the only policy in India extending menstrual leave to women in both government offices and private-sector establishments.
Karnataka Women’s Well-being Leave Bill, 2025,
The government proposes to seal the initiative with the introduction of the Karnataka Women’s Well-being Leave Bill, 2025, to provide all women employees in the age group of 18-52 years with one paid leave day per month. The proposed act prescribes a penalty of up to Rs 5,000 for employers or officials who deliberately deny menstrual leave or discriminate against someone for menstruating. The officials confirmed that the bill would be tabled in the Assembly this session.
Female students would get two days of menstrual leave
According to senior officials, the legislation seeks "to give legal force to the government order already issued, which grants women, employees 12 menstrual leave days a year." But the proposed law goes further. It extends provisions to the education sector as well. Under the bill, female students would get two days of menstrual leave every month, along with a 2 per cent attendance relaxation for menstruation-related issues.
The existing government order, issued by the Labour Department on 20 November, covers a wide range of employees, permanent, contract, and outsourced women workers aged 18 to 52 - from all establishments under the Factories Act, 1948; Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961; Garden Workers Act, 1951; Beedi and Cigar Workers Act, 1966; and Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961.
Petitioners question government order
But resistance to the policy started all but immediately. The Bangalore Hotels Association, representing 1,540 establishments, along with Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems Limited, had filed petitions questioning the government order.
In their petition, they mentioned that the State has no authority to issue executive orders for menstrual leave without changing the existing labour laws that reflect employee benefits. Though the statutes currently regulate all types of leave, the petitioners argued, no statute specifically mandates employers to provide menstrual leave.
Hence, the government exceeded its powers, the petitioners claimed, by issuing directions to private establishments for implementing the policy without bringing in new legislation. The High Court is now reviewing whether the order of the State can stand on its own, even as Karnataka rushes to bring a law that may make it the first Indian state with a comprehensive, legally enforceable menstrual leave framework covering employees and students.
Why critics say policy lacks legal grounding
The petitioners argued the policy does not have a legal basis from the existing labour laws.
They are dependent on Model Standing Orders under the Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules.
Clause 9: To provide leave as available under the Factories Act and other statutorily prescribed holidays, but none of these specifically provide for menstrual leave.
Clause 10: Provides for casual leaves up to 10 days in a year either with or without pay, no word about menstrual leave.
The petitioners claim that since there is no statute on menstrual leave, the government cannot mandate it by executive order.
They claim the government “interfered unnecessarily” in employer affairs; menstrual leave should be a matter of HR policy choice, not mandate.
Critics also state that the government did not search for stakeholder objections and termed the order violative of natural justice.
However, the government did issue a preliminary notification and invited objections.
This policy followed the recommendations of an expert committee in 2024, which recommended one day of menstrual leave and a supportive legislation.
Government received 75 comments from the public: 56 in support, 19 against.
Petitioners also argue that the policy places additional economic burden on businesses based on the number of women employees.
They also warned of possible "benevolent sexism", which argues that such a policy will inadvertently fuel gender bias and workplace discrimination.
