KSRTC tells Kerala High Court that granting two days of paid menstrual leave is a policy matter beyond judicial mandate, citing financial and operational constraints.
Background and Petition
Thiruvananthapuram, India: The Kerala High Court is currently hearing a petition seeking two days of paid menstrual leave per month for women conductors employed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). The petitioners, including several women conductors, have invoked comparative practices such as the Karnataka government’s introduction of menstrual leave for state employees, arguing for similar relief to be extended to KSRTC staff.
The plea underscores health and welfare considerations and seeks a judicial direction to KSRTC to implement a paid menstrual leave policy for its women conductors. This development comes amidst broader public and legal discussions on menstrual leave policies across India, including recent student-focused measures by state governments.
KSRTC’s Stand Before the High Court
In response, KSRTC filed a counter affidavit before the Kerala High Court opposing the relief sought by the petitioners. A law officer representing the state-owned transport corporation argued that the grant of paid menstrual leave falls within the domain of policy decisions and not within the judicially enforceable rights that a court can mandate.
KSRTC highlighted financial and administrative challenges, noting the corporation’s strained resources and current obligations, including salaries and pensions. According to the affidavit, introducing two days of paid menstrual leave for each of the approximately 1,842 women conductors currently employed would translate into roughly 5,700 additional paid leave days annually. KSRTC maintained that this would exacerbate existing staff shortages, create scheduling challenges, and potentially require the hiring of additional personnel, all of which would impose significant additional costs.
The corporation further submitted that decisions on leave benefits of this nature are best addressed by the legislature or executive, and that judicial interference could set a precedent encouraging similar claims from other employee groups, adding administrative and financial pressures.
Legal Arguments and Issues
The legal issue before the High Court is whether KSRTC, a government-owned corporation, can be directed by the judiciary to grant paid menstrual leave to women conductors in the absence of an existing statutory or policy provision. The petitioners argue that comparable schemes, such as the one adopted by the Karnataka government and policies implemented for female university students in Kerala, demonstrate a basis for extending similar benefits to working women in the transport sector.
KSRTC’s counsel countered that such leave benefits involve budgetary allocations and administrative structures that the court cannot impose. The corporation asserted that inclusion of menstrual leave in service conditions would require engagement with policy frameworks and consultations with relevant authorities, which is beyond the scope of judicial mandate.
Court Proceedings and Judicial Consideration
The matter, currently listed before a division bench of the Kerala High Court, has drawn attention to the evolving legal discourse on menstrual leave in Indian workplaces. While the court has yet to formalise its view, the arguments presented foreground a tension between welfare-oriented judicial activism and traditional separation of powers whereby policy formulation is entrusted to the legislature and executive.
Analysts note that the case arrives at a time when menstrual leave policies are increasingly debated in public and legal arenas. A public interest litigation in the Supreme Court has also sought a broader legal framework for menstrual pain leave for women across workplaces and educational institutions, urging government action under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Practical Implications
If the Kerala High Court were to grant the relief sought, it could set a precedent for other state transport corporations and public sector undertakings to introduce menstrual leave policies for women employees. This would represent a judicial push into employee welfare measures traditionally addressed through policy mechanisms. Conversely, a ruling aligning with KSRTC’s position could reinforce the demarcation between judicial roles and policy decision-making, limiting judicial intervention in setting employment benefits.
The case also highlights the ongoing national dialogue on menstrual health and workplace support, as various corporations and private sector employers explore menstrual leave options as part of broader gender-sensitive work policies.
Next Steps
The Kerala High Court is expected to continue hearings on the matter in the coming weeks, with arguments likely to focus on constitutional principles, administrative feasibility, and comparative policy practices. Both counsel for the petitioners and representatives for KSRTC will present further submissions addressing the legal and practical dimensions of implementing menstrual leave in the corporation’s service conditions.
The judgment adds clarity on the judiciary’s role in directing employee welfare measures like paid menstrual leave and the intersection between policy formulation and enforceable rights within public sector employment frameworks.
