Facts: A social worker filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking directions to the Union of India, States, and Union Territories to provide free sanitary pads to female children studying in classes 6 to 12 in government, aided, and residential schools, and to ensure separate toilets for females in these schools. The petition also sought maintenance of toilets and awareness programs about menstrual health. The Union of India submitted a Menstrual Hygiene Policy for School Going Girls, approved by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, aiming to mainstream menstrual hygiene in schools. Various states also outlined their initiatives, including providing sanitary napkins, constructing toilets, and conducting awareness programs.
Procedural Posture: The case originated as a writ petition (PIL) filed directly in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Issue: The core issues before the Court were: (a) Whether the unavailability of gender-segregated toilets and non-access to menstrual absorbents violates the right to equality under Article 14 for adolescent girl students; (b) Whether the right to dignified menstrual health is part of Article 21 of the Constitution; (c) Whether the unavailability of gender-segregated toilets and non-access to menstrual absorbents violates the right to participation and equality of opportunity under Article 14; and (d) Whether the unavailability of gender-segregated toilets and non-access to menstrual absorbents violates the right to education under Article 21A and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
Holding: The Court held that the right to education, the right to life with dignity, and the right to equality are all implicated by the lack of adequate menstrual hygiene facilities and access to menstrual products for girls in schools. The Court issued a series of directions to ensure the provision of functional toilets, menstrual absorbents, safe disposal mechanisms, and awareness programs in all schools across India.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that education is a fundamental human right and that the lack of menstrual hygiene management (MHM) measures disproportionately affects the right to education of adolescent female students. It emphasized the importance of substantive equality, which requires affirmative actions to address structural disadvantages. The Court linked dignified menstrual health to Article 21, stating that dignity cannot be realized without access to education and that the absence of MHM measures subjects girls to stigma and humiliation. It also connected MHM to the right to privacy and decisional autonomy, as well as the right to health, including reproductive health. The Court further reasoned that the lack of MHM measures impedes the equality of opportunity and the right to participate in school, violating Article 14. Finally, the Court emphasized that the RTE Act mandates free, compulsory, and quality education, which includes providing basic facilities like toilets and sanitary napkins. The Court underscored that the State cannot plead absence of funds as a justification for non-compliance with these standards.