Introduction:

In a significant development before the Karnataka High Court, a petition was filed by the Bangalore Hotels Association and Management of Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems Limited challenging the State Government’s November 20 notification mandating one day of paid menstrual leave per month for all permanent, contract and outsourced women employees across industrial establishments. Earlier this morning, during the 10:30 AM session, the Court had issued an interim order staying the operation of the notification. However, the matter took a dramatic turn when, before the lunch break, the Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty mentioned the matter again, asserting that the interim order contradicted binding precedent of the Supreme Court. The AG further submitted that he would personally argue the matter the next day and requested time. Consequently, the Court recorded the presence of counsel for both sides, directed the Government Advocate to accept notice, acknowledged the urgency raised by the petitioner, but finally listed the matter for hearing on interim relief tomorrow. This case has therefore become a legal battleground balancing labour rights, gender-sensitive policies, constitutional mandates and administrative feasibility.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

The petitioners argued that the government’s November 20 notification mandating paid menstrual leave constitutes an excessive and unilateral exercise of executive power, not backed by statutory mandate under any applicable labour laws such as the Factories Act, Industrial Establishments (Standing Orders) Act, or Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. They contended that menstrual leave, being a matter with economic and operational consequences, cannot be imposed through an executive notification without legislative approval, stakeholder consultation, or impact assessment. The petitioners further submitted that enforcing such leave across industries—irrespective of the nature of work, workforce size or economic structure—would result in disproportionate financial burden, administrative complications and potential loss of productivity. They claimed that the notification violates Article 14, being arbitrary, unreasonable and lacking rational classification, as it compels compliance from all establishments without considering sector-specific factors. Moreover, the petitioners argued that mandatory menstrual leave may unintentionally stigmatize women employees, discourage employers from hiring them and ultimately undermine gender equality, contrary to the purported objectives of the notification. They argued that any policy surrounding menstrual health should arise from participative legislative debate rather than executive fiat. Therefore, they sought immediate interim relief to stay the implementation of the notification to prevent operational chaos and financial hardship.

Arguments of the State Government:

On behalf of the State, the Advocate General contended that the interim stay granted in the morning session was inconsistent with the binding jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, which has emphasized judicial restraint when assessing social welfare measures introduced by the executive. The State argued that the objective of the notification is rooted in public health, gender justice and constitutional empathy under Articles 14, 21 and 42, which encourage humane working conditions and special provisions for women. The government maintained that menstrual leave is a progressive welfare measure addressing a genuine biological need, promoting women’s health, dignity and workplace inclusivity. The AG submitted that the notification does not impose arbitrary burdens but provides minimal relief of one paid day per month, which is reasonable, proportionate and consistent with global best practices in gender-sensitive labour policy. The State further argued that employers cannot challenge a welfare measure merely on grounds of financial inconvenience, especially when the executive has wide latitude to frame policies promoting workers’ well-being. The AG therefore sought time to present comprehensive submissions and requested the Court to reconsider the stay, asserting that administrative decisions motivated by social justice should not be lightly interfered with, particularly without hearing the State fully.

Court’s Judgment / Interim Observations:

The Karnataka High Court, after hearing the brief submissions and noting the intervention of the Advocate General, decided to keep the matter open for a detailed hearing on interim relief the following day. Although the Court had earlier granted an interim stay on the notification, it acknowledged the State’s contention regarding the necessity to examine the issue in light of Supreme Court precedent. The Court recorded the presence of counsel for both sides, directed the Government Advocate to accept notice on behalf of the State and acknowledged the petitioner’s plea of urgency. However, balancing the need for procedural fairness and the necessity to hear the Advocate General’s arguments in full, the Court adjourned the matter to tomorrow for a comprehensive hearing on the question of interim relief. Thus, while the notification technically remains stayed for the moment, its enforceability and constitutional validity will depend on the outcome of the upcoming substantive hearing, where the Court will weigh the competing considerations of women’s welfare, employer burden, statutory authority and constitutional norms.