Menstrual hygiene: Supreme Court expresses displeasure over States, UTs not responding to Centre

The Supreme Court was displeased because States and Union Territories had not supplied information about how they were implementing its judgment. The judgment recognised menstrual health as part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. The Court said a judgment cannot remain only on paper.

The Centre had asked every State and Union Territory to report the steps taken. The Bench said it could not understand why they had not responded after the Union requested the information. It directed the Centre to seek written details on every aspect of implementation, including school facilities and sanitary napkins.

The Court granted one last opportunity and scheduled the next hearing for December 14. It warned that, if some States or Union Territories still had not replied, it could issue contempt notices to the concerned chief secretaries. The response process therefore became an immediate accountability test.

Article 21 of the Constitution deals with protection of life and personal liberty. In its January 30 judgment, the Supreme Court said the right to life includes the right to menstrual health. This makes menstrual hygiene a constitutional concern, not merely a personal or household matter.

The Court linked this protection to the conditions young girls face in schools. It highlighted deficiencies such as inadequate toilets, water, privacy, and access to sanitary napkins. The judgment therefore directed States and Union Territories to ensure essential menstrual-health facilities in every school.

The reason is practical as well as legal. The Bench said girls were giving up education because of menstrual-hygiene problems, particularly in remote parts of the country. Recognising menstrual health under Article 21 requires authorities to turn that constitutional protection into working school facilities and services.

The Supreme Court directed every school to provide functional, gender-segregated toilets with usable water connectivity. These facilities must support accessibility and privacy. The direction applies to schools in both urban and rural areas, rather than only to government institutions.

The Court also ordered every school to provide sanitary napkins to girl students free of cost. In its September 1 order, it specifically focused on counting schools without gender-segregated, functional toilets, usable water, accessibility, and privacy. These requirements address both the physical facilities and the menstrual products students need.

The directions cover government-run and privately managed schools. They were issued as part of the Court’s January judgment on the Centre’s menstrual hygiene policy for schoolgoing girls in Classes 6 to 12. States and Union Territories must implement the measures and report their progress.

The Centre informed the Supreme Court that 30,458 gender-segregated toilets with washing facilities had been constructed in schools across the country. This figure represents facilities already completed when the matter was discussed in court.

The same update recorded 4,236 gender-segregated toilets with washing facilities under construction. The figures came during the Court’s consideration of whether schools were meeting the menstrual-hygiene requirements in its judgment. The Court’s focus also included usable water, accessibility, and privacy.

These numbers show both progress and unfinished work. Completed toilets do not by themselves answer every requirement, because the Court also directed schools to provide functional facilities, usable water connectivity, and free sanitary napkins. States and Union Territories were expected to report how they were addressing each deficiency, while the Centre was told to collect the information in writing.

The Supreme Court said the judgment was intended to protect young girls who were giving up education because of menstrual-hygiene problems. It identified the issue as especially serious in remote parts of the country. School conditions therefore matter directly to whether girls can continue their education.

The Court focused on schools lacking gender-segregated, functional toilets with usable water connectivity. It also stressed accessibility and privacy. Alongside these facilities, it directed every school to provide girl students with sanitary napkins free of cost. Together, these measures address the main practical barriers identified in the proceedings.

The article does not provide a national number of girls who left school. It does show why implementation matters: constitutional recognition is ineffective if facilities are absent. Better compliance would give schools the infrastructure and supplies required to support menstrual health and help prevent the educational disruption highlighted by the Court.

The Centre’s role is to coordinate implementation across the country. The Supreme Court directed it to study the verdict again and ask each State and Union Territory for written information on every relevant step. The Centre must also take the issue seriously with each administration.

States and Union Territories must put the directions into practice in every school. This includes functional, gender-segregated toilets with usable water connectivity, accessibility and privacy, plus free sanitary napkins for girl students. They must report what they have done and address deficiencies identified by the Court.

The Supreme Court monitors compliance through hearings and orders. It had already asked administrations to report by the next hearing. The Bench granted one final opportunity and warned that it could issue contempt notices to concerned chief secretaries if administrations still failed to respond. The arrangement combines coordination, local implementation, reporting, and judicial enforcement.

Menstrual hygiene is a public-health issue because schools must provide facilities that support it. The Supreme Court focused on toilets, usable water, accessibility, privacy, and free sanitary napkins. These are conditions that institutions and public authorities must address, not matters left only to individual students.

It is also a human-rights issue because the Court held that menstrual health is part of the right to life under Article 21. The judgment applies to every school, including government-run and privately managed schools in urban and rural areas. That makes the protection broad and enforceable through public administration and court monitoring.

The concern reaches beyond comfort or privacy. The Bench said girls were giving up education because of menstrual-hygiene problems, especially in remote areas. Ensuring facilities can therefore protect both constitutional rights and access to schooling. The continuing reports and possible contempt action show that implementation remains necessary.