No Stay Yet: Karnataka Menstrual Leave Policy to Continue Pending Detailed Hearing
The Karnataka High Court odeclined to grant an immediate stay on the State government’s new menstrual leave policy, stating that the issue requires a detailed hearing before any interim order can be passed.
Justice Jyoti M adjourned the matter to January 20, 2026, and clarified that no temporary directions would operate against the policy until then.
The menstrual leave policy, issued on November 20, allows women employees in all industries and establishments registered under various labour laws in Karnataka to take one paid menstrual leave every month. It applies to establishments covered under the Factories Act, 1948; the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961; the Plantation Labour Act, 1951; the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966; and the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961.
The policy has been challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association and several companies including SASMOS HET Technologies, Avirata Defence Systems, Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems and Fesil Aerospace Technologies.
How the Stay Was Recalled Yesterday
On Tuesday, the Court had initially granted interim relief to the Bangalore Hotels Association after hearing their preliminary submissions. However, the order was recalled within hours after Advocate General (AG) Shashi Kiran Shetty appeared before the lunch break and urged the Court to reconsider. The Court then agreed to hear the matter again the following day.
State Defends Policy as a Progressive Measure
During Wednesday’s hearing, AG Shetty strongly defended the menstrual leave policy. He called it a progressive step aimed at ensuring humane working conditions for women and said it had both constitutional backing and administrative justification.
According to him, Karnataka has taken the lead nationally by framing such a policy, and stakeholders were consulted before it was issued.
“Throughout India, ours is a very progressive legislature. Karnataka is the first State to bring out such a policy. Everyone was heard, and 72 objections were received,” he submitted.
Petitioners Question the Manner of Issuance
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Prashanth BK clarified that the challenge was not against the State’s power to create such a policy, but against its decision to issue it through an executive order rather than through proper legislative amendments.
“The concern is the manner in which the policy has been imposed. There are existing statutes. Amendments could have been made through the legislative process. Can an executive order override or travel beyond the statute?” he asked.
High Court Says Matter Needs Careful Consideration
Justice Jyoti M indicated that the matter should be taken up after the winter vacation. She suggested that petitioners review the State’s statement of objections and file their responses in the meantime.
Advocate Prashanth asked the Court to request the State to maintain the status quo until the next hearing. AG Shetty responded that the State intended to implement the policy fully.
The Court, however, said such questions should be handled with caution.
“Nothing will happen. It requires detailed consideration. This is a matter of public importance. We will fix a date,” the Judge observed, scheduling the next hearing for January 20, 2026.
State Says Policy Advances Equality and Workplace Safety
In its objections, the State argued that the menstrual leave policy furthers the right to equality under the Constitution.
It stated that the State has a responsibility to ensure women are not discriminated against due to the biological process of menstruation. The policy, according to the government, promotes a workplace environment where natural biological differences do not result in professional disadvantages.
The State further said that the leave allows women to rest and return to work without affecting productivity or creating operational difficulties for colleagues or supervisors.
The government also asserted that no separate amendment is needed to introduce paid menstrual leave, as existing labour laws already allow additional welfare benefits.
On financial concerns raised by the petitioners, the State said such arguments cannot outweigh employee welfare.
“The health and safety of employees is far more important,” the State emphasised.
