Introduction
The Supreme Court has directed the Union Government to address shortcomings in the implementation of its earlier directions on menstrual hygiene management in schools. Emphasising that menstrual hygiene is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court observed that merely declaring the right is insufficient unless it is translated into effective action on the ground.
Legal Issue
The issue before the Court concerned compliance with its January 2026 judgment directing implementation of the national “Menstrual Hygiene Policy for School-going Girls” across the country. The Court examined whether the Union Government, States, and Union Territories had effectively implemented measures relating to free sanitary napkins, functional toilets, and menstrual hygiene facilities in schools.
Background
In a writ petition filed by Dr. Jaya Thakur, the Supreme Court had earlier directed the implementation of a nationwide menstrual hygiene policy for girls studying in Classes VI to XII. The judgment mandated the provision of free biodegradable sanitary napkins in schools and required gender-segregated toilets with adequate water facilities for menstrual hygiene management.
The matter was kept pending for monitoring compliance. Pursuant to the directions, the Union Government, States, and Union Territories submitted compliance reports before the Court.
However, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the reports largely contained future recommendations and proposed reforms rather than evidence of actual implementation. It was submitted that most States had not placed independent compliance reports and that budgetary allocations for menstrual hygiene remained inadequate. Reference was also made to a 2026 report indicating that thousands of government schools lacked functional girls’ toilets and usable sanitation facilities.
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court noted the concerns raised regarding the gap between policy commitments and actual implementation. The Court directed the Union Government to examine the deficiencies highlighted by the petitioner and take immediate corrective steps.
The Bench reiterated that menstrual hygiene has already been recognised as a fundamental right and an integral component of the right to life under Article 21. It stressed that constitutional recognition of the right must be accompanied by meaningful implementation through coordinated action by the Union and State Governments.
The Court warned that any laxity in complying with its directions would be viewed seriously. It further directed the Union Government to continue monitoring compliance by States and Union Territories, regularly collect data regarding implementation, and submit progress reports every three months.
The Bench observed that effective implementation of menstrual hygiene measures is necessary to make the fundamental right practical and meaningful for school-going girls across the country.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that menstrual hygiene is not merely a policy objective but a constitutionally protected right under Article 21. By directing continuous monitoring and warning against administrative inaction, the Court has sought to ensure that access to sanitary products, functional toilets, and menstrual hygiene facilities becomes a reality for girls studying in schools nationwide.
Case Name
Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India & Others
