Allowing Menstrual Leave at Work Needs a Mindset Change and Not Just A Mandate
Progressive workplace policies like menstrual leave require detailed analysis and discussion amongst various stakeholders, including the government, women, women’s rights groups, and industry bodies like FICCI, CII, and ASSOCHAM. Encouragingly, many of these organisations have active women-focused chapters, like FICCI FLO, that bring women’s voices and perspectives into the conversation.
On March 13, the Supreme Court ruled against making menstrual leave mandatory in India. As India struggles with increasing women’s participation in the workforce, currently around 40%, this news caused widespread shock and disappointment.
Working mothers juggle childcare, care for ageing parents, and professional ambitions and commitments, while dealing with biological realities such as menstruation and pregnancy. They make it look easy, doable, but we all know it’s hard.
A policy acknowledging and addressing this reality has the potential of creating lasting change on the ground by sensitising workspaces and work culture to women employees.
From that perspective, mandatory menstrual leave might appear to be a progressive step. However, there’s more to this.
Why SC Didn’t Make Menstrual Leave A Legal Right For Women In India
In this landmark ruling, the SC bench expressed concerns over making menstrual leave mandatory for women workers and students across India, expressing concerns that it could create subtle hiring biases against women and, in the long run, work against their progress.
One way to look at this ruling is through the prism of what’s called the Cobra Effect in economics. The Cobra Effect says that enforcing any policy in absolute terms could reverse its intended effects.
Take the example of maternity leave. The extension of maternity leave to 26 weeks under the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, was undoubtedly progressive and necessary. Yet, in practice, many organisations, especially smaller ones, have quietly treated it as a cost burden. The unintended consequence of making 26-week maternity leave a legal right is that some employers now view it as a deterrent to hiring women or promoting them to senior roles, thereby defeating the very purpose and intent of this Act.
The data bears this out. A 2023 CMIE analysis found a measurable decline in the hiring of women aged between the ages of 26 and 40 in the formal sector firms with fewer than 50 employees in the years following the 2017 amendment – the demographic that should have benefited most. The policy was intended to support women in the workplace, ensuring job continuity and career growth. But in some cases, it also ended up introducing hiring bias against them and slowing down their career growth.
Mandating menstrual leave runs the same risk. It could lead to unintended outcomes, impacting women’s careers and progress, as a few past global examples have demonstrated.
Menstrual Leave from a Historical Perspective
Japan was perhaps the first country in the world to introduce menstrual leave, called seiri kyuuka, back in 1947. Yet, today, nearly 8 decades after this law was introduced, less than 1% of working women in Japan avail of it. Why?
Academic research consistently points to social and professional stigma around menstruation, and the fear of losing out on professional opportunities and growth as the main reasons behind such a low uptake. Similarly, menstrual leave uptake in South Korea dropped from 23.6% in 2013 to under 20% by 2017, despite it being a legal entitlement.
More recently, Spain became the first European country to legislate menstrual leave in 2023, allowing women to take three paid days off per month. One year later, data from the Spanish government showed that a little more than 1500 women had availed of this leave, citing hiring discrimination and professional taboo as the main reasons.
These examples show that while such workplace policies exist on paper and with good intent, their implementation in the real world remains fraught with social and economic challenges.
The evidence from these countries does not build a case against such laws, but it begs us to give it more thought. We need to ask if a legal mandate alone is sufficient to bring about lasting change on the ground.
Adopting a Nuanced Approach
Progressive workplace policies like menstrual leave require detailed analysis and discussion amongst various stakeholders, including the government, women, women’s rights groups, and industry bodies like FICCI, CII, and ASSOCHAM. Encouragingly, many of these organisations have active women-focused chapters, like FICCI FLO, that bring women’s voices and perspectives into the conversation.
Incentivising women-friendly policies can ensure their larger and more efficient adoption. For example, companies that voluntarily offer menstrual leave, enhanced childcare support, or flexible work arrangements could be given certain tax incentives or recognition from the government. Such an approach could encourage widespread adoption while avoiding unintended biases in hiring behaviour.
Lessons from Around the World
The experience of Scandinavian countries in implementing parental leave also offers compelling insights into achieving gender equity in the workforce and creating healthier and safer workplaces for women.
By making a significant portion of parental leave non-transferable, which means that fathers must avail of the leave or lose it, both countries have successfully removed an unconscious hiring bias against women.
When parental leave is ungendered, employers no longer perceive only women as costly hires. And the outcome? Sweden’s female labour force participation rate now exceeds 70%, and Iceland’s consistently ranks among the highest in the world.
The clear takeaway from these examples is that when it comes to implementing women-centric work policies, leaders and CHROs need to implement them not just in letter but also in spirit. The policy design has to be just as important as policy intent.
Women don’t want special treatment at work, but they want acceptance and equity. They don’t want to be just defined by their gender but also by what they bring to the table.
So, any mandate that isolates them or puts them in a special category runs the risk of backfiring for them in the long run.
On the other hand, voluntary adoption, backed by tangible incentives and public recognition for the companies, is more likely to produce a cultural and behavioural shift in the workplace.
Increase women’s participation in the workforce in letter and spirit
Ultimately, the broader challenge is far bigger than menstrual leave alone.
India’s Female Labour Force Participation Rate (FLFPR) currently hovers around 40%, significantly lower than many developed economies, where it often exceeds 50–60%. It is important to note here that women engaged in agriculture and government schemes like MGNREGA constitute a large chunk of this 40%; if we remove them from the equation, then the FLFPR drops sharply and is a cause of worry.
A cocktail of factors, from poor access to safe transport to lack of childcare facilities, is keeping a large number of Indian women away from paid work. As a result, women often prefer taking up WFH roles or jobs that are near their home, even if it means working at a lesser salary or in a role that does not honour their experience and education.
We can correct this imbalance by adopting a broader policy framework:
- Safer public transportation that enables women to commute confidently
- Better childcare infrastructure at work
- Flexible and hybrid work options for young mothers
- Stronger implementation of workplace safety laws, such as the POSH Act, with mandatory compliance audits
- A work culture that actively supports women through different phases of life
Our government wants to take women’s workforce participation to 70% by 2047.
It can’t achieve this alone, and all stakeholders, including CHROs, need to come together to bring about change and create modern workplaces that allow women workers to thrive. We need managers who look beyond gender and protect and value what women bring to the table. Because more women in the workplace is not just a social imperative. It is an economic one too.For further insights into the evolving workplace paradigm, visit
