INTRODUCTION
Menstrual health is a crucial part of overall well-being, as it involves not only the safe management of menstruation but also access to hygiene facilities, information, and support. In India, however, stigma and inadequate infrastructure continue to limit access, revealing a gap between legal protections and the lived reality of many girls and women.
In Dr Jaya Thakur v. Union of India[1], the Supreme Court addressed the lack of menstrual hygiene facilities in schools, where absenteeism is common due to poor toilets, lack of privacy, and social stigma[2]. The Court recognised menstrual health as connected to dignity, equality, and the right to life under Article 21[3], and it directed the government to ensure proper facilities and effective implementation of hygiene measures.
Although this judicial acknowledgement is significant, questions remain about its enforceability. Observations and policy instructions alone may not guarantee compliance, especially where infrastructure is lacking or social stigma persists. Strengthened legal mechanisms, monitoring, and accountability are therefore essential to ensure that menstrual health is not merely a legal principle but a practical, accessible right for all girls and women.
FROM NEGLECT TO RECOGNITION
For many years, menstrual health in India has been affected by gaps in access and awareness. Many girls and women lacked basic knowledge and often relied on unsafe materials, while schools and public institutions frequently failed to provide clean toilets, water, or disposal systems. Social stigma further limited open discussion.
These conditions go beyond social concerns and raise constitutional issues relating to health, dignity, and equality under Article 21. Their impact is visible in education as well, where inadequate facilities contribute to absenteeism and, in some cases, school dropouts among girls[4].
In response, the government introduced initiatives such as the Menstrual Hygiene Scheme (MHS)[5] and the Rashtriya Kishor Swasthya Karyakram (RKSK)[6] to improve access and awareness. However, these measures largely function within a welfare framework and depend on implementation, which remains uneven. This creates a gap between policy intent and actual access. Data from the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) shows increased use of hygienic menstrual products[7]. Yet, disparities across regions and socio-economic groups continue to limit their reach, indicating that policy efforts alone have not addressed underlying inequalities.
In this context, the issue gains legal significance in Dr Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, where the focus shifts from policy measures to constitutional recognition. The case highlights the limits of relying solely on schemes and points towards the need for stronger accountability and enforceable protections.
The shift from neglect to recognition is therefore incomplete, and meaningful progress depends on moving beyond welfare measures towards a rights-based and enforceable approach.
MENSTRUAL HEALTH AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
In January 2026, the Supreme Court of India in Dr Jaya Thakur v. Union of India examined menstrual hygiene within a constitutional framework. The Court placed menstrual health under Article 21, thereby extending the right to life to include conditions necessary for health and personal dignity.
This reflects the Court’s broader approach of interpreting Article 21 to include essential aspects of human well-being, rather than limiting it to mere survival. While referring to Article 21A[8], the Court recognised that the absence of basic sanitation facilities in schools affects girls’ ability to attend classes regularly. By linking menstrual hygiene with access to education, the Court highlighted that inadequate infrastructure can operate as a practical barrier to the exercise of a fundamental right. In its discussion of Article 14[9], the Court acknowledged that the impact of poor menstrual hygiene facilities is not uniform, as girls and women are disproportionately affected.
This brings in the idea of substantive equality, where unequal outcomes arise from seemingly neutral conditions, requiring focused attention to ensure real equality. At the same time, the judgment primarily issues directions to authorities without clearly laying down enforceable standards or accountability mechanisms. As a result, its effectiveness depends on implementation rather than legal compulsion, which may limit its practical impact. The decision is significant for expanding constitutional interpretation, but its long-term value lies in whether these principles translate into consistent and enforceable practices.
TURNING LAW INTO PROTECTION
The judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr Jaya Thakur v. Union of India marks an important development in constitutional law by bringing menstrual health within the scope of fundamental rights. By interpreting Articles 21, 21A, and 14 together, the Court moves beyond a narrow understanding of the right to life and recognises that access to basic health conditions is necessary for the meaningful exercise of rights. In doing so, the judgment strengthens Article 21 jurisprudence by reinforcing that dignity and health require concrete conditions such as sanitation, hygiene, and access to essential resources.
The decision is also significant from the perspective of equality. By acknowledging that inadequate menstrual hygiene facilities disproportionately affect girls, the Court adopts a substantive equality approach under Article 14. This highlights that equal treatment alone is insufficient and that the law must address conditions that create unequal outcomes in practice. At the same time, the judgment has clear implications for public policy. It requires the State to take active steps in improving infrastructure, access to sanitary products, and awareness measures, particularly in educational institutions.
This shifts menstrual health from a welfare concern to an issue carrying constitutional obligations, thereby increasing State accountability. Despite this, the effectiveness of the judgement depends largely on implementation, as challenges such as funding constraints, regional disparities, and social stigma may limit its practical impact, especially in rural areas. Further, while the Court expands the scope of fundamental rights, it does not clearly define enforceable standards or monitoring mechanisms, which may lead to inconsistency in execution. Therefore, the judgment is better understood as a step toward constitutional recognition rather than a complete solution, with its real impact depending on how effectively these directions are implemented in practice.
CONCLUSION
The decision in Dr Jaya Thakur v. Union of India marks an important step in recognising menstrual health within the framework of fundamental rights. By linking it to Articles 21, 21A, and 14, the Court expands constitutional interpretation to include conditions necessary for health and equality.
At the same time, the judgment primarily relies on directions and does not fully establish enforceable standards, leaving its impact dependent on implementation. This highlights the gap between constitutional recognition and practical realisation. In this context, the ruling strengthens the legal position of menstrual health, but its effectiveness will depend on consistent policy action and accountability in execution.
Author: Gowri K (Saveetha School of Law, SIMATS, Chennai)
References:
[1] Dr Jaya Thakur v Government of India & Ors (2026) INSC 97
[2] ‘No Menstrual Hygiene Products at Schools Causes Girls’ Absenteeism: Report’ NDTV (11 December 2023) <https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/no-menstrual-hygiene-products-at-schools-causes-girls-absenteeism-report-4654656 > accessed 07 March 2026
[3] The Constitution of India 1950, art 21
[4] Anna Maria van Eijk et al., ‘Menstrual hygiene management among adolescent girls in India: a systematic review and meta‑analysis’ (2015) 6(3) BMJ Open <https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/3/e010290> accessed 07 March 2026
[5] ‘Menstrual Hygiene Scheme (MHS)’ (National Health Mission, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 2011)
[6] ‘Rashtriya Kishor Swasthya Karyakram (RKSK)’ (National Health Mission Tamil Nadu) <https://www.nhm.tn.gov.in/en/nhm-programsrmncha/rashtriya-kishor-swasthya-karyakram-rksk> accessed 15 March 2026
[7] National Family Health Survey (NFHS‑5), India, 2019–21: India Final Report (International Institute for Population Sciences and ICF, 2022)
[8] The Constitution of India 1950, art 21A
[9] The Constitution of India 1950, art 14
