Introduction:

In Asha S.S. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others (WP(C) 44089/2025), the Kerala High Court is considering an important issue concerning gender sensitive workplace policies and labour welfare, particularly the demand for two days of paid menstrual leave for women conductors employed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioners, who are women conductors working under the Corporation, approached the High Court seeking recognition of menstrual leave as a necessary workplace accommodation, citing physiological challenges faced during menstruation and the need for gender inclusive employment policies. The petitioners relied upon progressive steps taken by other States, including Karnataka, which introduced menstrual leave provisions for women employees, and argued that similar benefits should be extended to women conductors in KSRTC. The petition further sought directions to the Chairman and Managing Director of KSRTC to place their representation before the Corporation’s Board of Directors for consideration and implementation. The matter raised broader constitutional questions relating to equality, dignity, labour welfare, and gender justice while simultaneously inviting debate on the limits of judicial intervention in policy matters and financial implications of workplace reforms in public sector undertakings. The KSRTC filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the petition and arguing that the demand for menstrual leave falls within the exclusive policy domain of the executive and legislature and cannot be enforced through judicial orders. The matter was heard by Justice N. Nagaresh, who posted the case for further hearing on February 12, keeping open critical questions relating to gender rights, workplace accommodation, and constitutional governance.

Arguments Of The Petitioners:

The petitioners contended that menstruation is a natural biological process that significantly affects the physical and mental well-being of women, particularly those engaged in physically demanding occupations such as public transport conductors. They argued that women conductors in KSRTC are required to work long hours under strenuous conditions including prolonged standing, exposure to weather variations, irregular work schedules, and lack of adequate rest facilities, which aggravates menstrual discomfort and health complications. The petitioners submitted that denial of menstrual leave undermines their right to health, dignity, and safe working conditions guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India. They emphasised that Article 14 mandates equality before law while Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on gender and Article 21 guarantees the right to life with dignity, which includes workplace conditions that respect women’s biological needs. The petitioners argued that menstrual leave is not a special privilege but a necessary accommodation recognising biological differences between men and women and ensuring substantive equality in employment. The petitioners relied upon progressive legislative and administrative developments in other jurisdictions and cited the Karnataka Government’s decision to introduce paid menstrual leave as an example of evolving gender sensitive labour policies. They contended that such policies reflect constitutional commitments towards gender justice and social welfare and should be extended uniformly across public sector institutions.

The petitioners further argued that absence of adequate sanitation facilities in certain KSRTC depots and bus terminals exacerbates difficulties faced by women conductors during menstruation. They alleged that several depots lack clean toilets, continuous water supply, and safe disposal mechanisms for menstrual products, thereby creating unhealthy and undignified working conditions. The petitioners asserted that failure to provide such facilities violates statutory obligations relating to workplace safety and public health. They also contended that menstrual leave would reduce medical complications, absenteeism due to illness, and long term health risks among women employees, thereby improving workforce efficiency and productivity. The petitioners emphasised that recognition of menstrual leave would promote inclusive employment practices and encourage greater participation of women in public sector employment. They therefore sought judicial directions to grant two days of paid menstrual leave per month to women conductors and requested the Court to direct KSRTC authorities to place their representation before the Corporation’s Board for appropriate policy formulation. The petitioners argued that constitutional courts have consistently expanded the interpretation of fundamental rights to include workplace dignity and gender sensitive protections and therefore the Court must intervene to safeguard the rights of women employees.

Arguments Of The Respondents:

The KSRTC strongly opposed the petition and argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as it seeks formulation of employment policy which falls exclusively within the domain of the legislature and executive. The Corporation contended that menstrual leave is not a fundamental right, statutory entitlement, or enforceable legal right and therefore cannot be mandated through a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondents emphasised the doctrine of separation of powers and argued that courts cannot legislate by directing the Government or public sector undertakings to introduce new employment benefits or welfare schemes. The KSRTC submitted that its employees are governed by the Kerala Service Rules which do not contain any provision recognising menstrual leave as a category of paid leave and therefore granting such relief would require legislative or administrative amendment rather than judicial intervention. The respondents further argued that menstrual leave is not universally recognised as a labour entitlement and only a few countries have introduced such provisions as statutory benefits. They contended that absence of global consensus on menstrual leave indicates that the issue involves complex policy considerations including workforce management, gender equality concerns, and economic feasibility which must be evaluated by the executive authorities rather than courts.

The KSRTC also raised procedural objections and argued that since the petition seeks relief affecting all women conductors employed by the Corporation, the petition ought to have been filed as a public interest litigation rather than an individual writ petition. The respondents denied allegations relating to lack of sanitation facilities and stated that KSRTC has taken adequate steps to ensure availability of clean toilets, water supply, and disposal mechanisms in its depots and bus stations. The Corporation further argued that introduction of mandatory menstrual leave would create serious operational challenges considering the nature of public transport services which require continuous staffing and strict scheduling. The respondents submitted that KSRTC employs approximately 1,842 women conductors and granting two days paid menstrual leave per month would result in nearly 5,700 paid leave days every month, which would disrupt operational efficiency and require additional workforce arrangements. The KSRTC emphasised that the Corporation is currently facing severe financial constraints including difficulties in payment of salaries, pension liabilities, and maintenance of transport infrastructure. The respondents contended that introduction of menstrual leave would create recurring financial burdens involving payment of leave wages, overtime compensation, and recruitment of substitute staff, thereby aggravating financial instability of the Corporation. The KSRTC also relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India, where a Public Interest Litigation seeking menstrual leave for women across educational institutions and workplaces was declined on the ground that such matters fall within policy making functions of the Government. The respondents therefore sought dismissal of the petition on grounds of maintainability, financial impracticality, and constitutional separation of powers.

Court’s Judgment:

The Kerala High Court while considering the submissions of both parties did not pass a final determination on the merits of the petition and instead posted the matter for further hearing, indicating that the issue raises significant constitutional, policy, and administrative questions requiring detailed consideration. Justice N. Nagaresh examined the preliminary arguments presented by the petitioners and the counter affidavit filed by KSRTC and recognised that the matter involves competing concerns relating to gender welfare, employment policy, and administrative feasibility. The Court noted that the petition seeks judicial directions for introduction of a new category of paid leave and therefore raises questions regarding the scope of judicial powers under Article 226 in directing formulation of employment policies. The Court acknowledged that menstrual health and workplace dignity are important aspects of gender equality and labour welfare but also observed that courts must exercise caution while entering areas traditionally reserved for legislative and executive decision making. The Court took note of KSRTC’s contention that service conditions of its employees are governed by statutory rules and any modification to such rules requires policy decisions involving financial and administrative evaluation. The Court also noted the Corporation’s submission regarding operational challenges and financial difficulties and observed that introduction of additional paid leave benefits for a large workforce could have wide ranging administrative implications.

The Court further considered the petitioners’ reliance on evolving constitutional jurisprudence recognising gender sensitive workplace protections and acknowledged that the issue of menstrual leave is gaining increasing attention in public policy debates across India. However, the Court indicated that determination of such benefits requires comprehensive assessment of medical evidence, labour policy considerations, financial viability, and comparative practices across jurisdictions. The Court therefore refrained from issuing immediate directions and instead allowed the matter to proceed for detailed hearing where broader constitutional and policy aspects can be examined. The Court’s approach reflects judicial restraint and recognition of institutional boundaries while ensuring that the issue receives serious consideration through proper legal process. By posting the case for further hearing on February 12, the Court kept open the possibility of examining whether existing labour laws, constitutional guarantees, and workplace safety obligations require reconsideration in light of gender specific health concerns. The proceedings indicate that the Court is conscious of the need to balance women’s workplace rights with administrative and financial realities faced by public sector undertakings and aims to undertake a thorough evaluation before arriving at any final conclusion.