Introduction
In a significant development concerning women’s labour rights and State policy-making powers, the Karnataka High Court on December 9, 2025, recalled its own interim order that had earlier in the day stayed the State government’s paid menstrual leave policy. The recall order followed an urgent mentioning by the State’s Advocate General, who persuaded the Court to reconsider its morning order.
The matter, which centers around the validity of a government notification granting one paid menstrual leave per month, will now be heard in detail tomorrow. The issue has sparked debate across industries, labour law circles, and gender rights platforms, making it one of the most closely watched labour policy cases in recent times.
Background: What Does the Menstrual Leave Policy Provide?
The challenged government notification entitles women employees across various industries and establishments to avail one paid leave every month as menstrual leave.
It applies to all establishments registered under:
- Factories Act, 1948
- Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961
- Plantation Labour Act, 1951
- Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966
- Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961
This effectively covers the bulk of organized sector employment in the State, making the notification widely applicable and financially significant for employers.
The Petition by Bangalore Hotels Association
The petition challenging the notification was filed by the Bangalore Hotels Association, representing employers in the hospitality industry. Their counsel, Advocate Prashant BK, made several key submissions arguing that the notification is unconstitutional and beyond executive powers.
Key Arguments by the Petitioners
1. Lack of Statutory Authority
The association contended that the government did not specify under which statutory power the notification was issued.
“This notification does not even indicate under which power the government has issued,” the petitioner’s counsel argued.
In labour law, any policy that imposes mandatory financial or compliance obligations on employers must be rooted in a statute such as the Factories Act or Shops Act. The petitioners argued that the State cannot use mere executive instructions to impose obligations with civil consequences.
2. Existing Leave Provisions Already Sufficient
The association pointed out that each of the relevant Acts already provides for:
- Casual Leave
- Sick Leave
- Earned Leave
- Maternity Leave (where applicable)
Thus, the petitioners argued that mandating a separate category of paid menstrual leave was unnecessary, and the matter should have been left to establishments individually, depending on financial and operational feasibility.
3. Financial Burden on Employers
The association emphasised that compulsory menstrual leave would increase labour costs, disrupt shifts, and create staffing gaps, especially in labour-intensive sectors like hospitality.
They argued that before imposing such a policy, the government should have consulted stakeholders, including employers, industry bodies, and labour unions.
Morning Order: Court Initially Grants Interim Relief
After hearing the preliminary submissions in the morning session, Justice Jyoti M granted interim relief to the petitioner by staying the menstrual leave notification.
The Court also sought the State government’s formal response.
This interim stay caused significant attention and debate, as the notification had been hailed by many as a progressive step in workplace rights for women.
State Government’s Intervention: Advocate General Requests Recall
Shortly before the lunch break, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty appeared before Justice Jyoti M and requested that the stay be reconsidered and recalled.
The Advocate General argued that the stay was passed without considering crucial aspects of the government’s decision and its broader social impact.
Given the importance of the policy and the need for a detailed hearing, the Court agreed to revisit the matter.
Afternoon Order: High Court Recalls the Interim Stay
In a significant turn of events, the Karnataka High Court recalled its morning order.
This means:
- The menstrual leave policy is no longer stayed.
- The notification remains in force unless the Court passes a fresh interim order after tomorrow’s detailed hearing.
Justice Jyoti M directed that the matter would be heard further the next day, giving both sides an opportunity to present substantive arguments.
Legal Issues Likely to Arise in the Upcoming Hearing
The next hearing will likely focus on the following core legal questions:
1. Can an Executive Notification Create New Leave Entitlements?
The Court will examine whether the government has the power under Article 162 (executive power of the State) or under labour statutes to create new categories of mandatory leave.
2. Does Mandatory Menstrual Leave Impose “Civil Consequences”?
If the notification financially burdens employers, the Court may consider whether such consequences require legislative action rather than executive orders.
3. Whether Consultation with Stakeholders Is Mandatory
Although not always required, courts sometimes hold that policies with large financial impact require stakeholder consultation.
4. Balancing Constitutional Rights
Women’s reproductive health, dignity, and workplace equality may invoke Articles 14, 15, and 21.
Broader Context: Menstrual Leave Policies in India and Abroad
While India has no national law mandating menstrual leave, some regions and institutions voluntarily implement such policies. Internationally, countries like:
- Spain
- Japan
- South Korea
- Indonesia
provide various forms of paid or unpaid menstrual leave.
The Karnataka notification is one of the first comprehensive State-level measures in India, making this case legally and socially significant.
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court’s recall of its interim stay marks an important moment in the evolving discussion on menstrual leave, women’s healthcare, and labour rights.
The upcoming hearing will determine whether the State government acted within its powers, and how courts balance employer concerns with gender-sensitive policies.
The final outcome will have far-reaching implications not only for Karnataka but also for other States considering similar welfare measures.
Also Read
