The Supreme Court’s directive to provide free sanitary pads to girl students in schools and make menstrual hygiene compulsory is not merely an administrative order, but rather a reflection of the collective mindset of Indian society, which still views menstruation with hesitation, silence, and neglect. This decision makes clear that menstruation is not merely a health or hygiene issue, but a serious constitutional question involving dignity, equality, and the right to education.
In a country like India, where the Constitution guarantees equality and the right to a dignified life, the fact that millions of female students are forced to study in unsafe and degrading conditions during their menstrual cycle exposes a profound failure of the system. This court intervention is a necessary step towards addressing this failure. It reminds us that rights are not merely declarations on paper; they only have real meaning when they are realized on the ground.
Menstruation has long been ignored, considered merely a biological process. As a result, the issue has become the limited responsibility of the Ministry of Health or school management. The truth is that menstruation has profound social, educational, and psychological impacts. Due to lack of sanitation facilities and proper information, female students are not only at risk of infections and diseases, but shame and fear also prevent them from attending school regularly. In many cases, this situation leads to permanent school dropout.
Numerous studies show that a large number of adolescent girls miss several days of school each month due to lack of proper management during menstruation. This absence gradually weakens the learning process and ultimately increases the risk of dropping out of education altogether. Therefore, it is natural to question whether we are truly committed to the goal of “education for all,” or whether it remains a mere slogan confined to policy documents.
The Supreme Court’s order clearly underscored that ignoring menstrual hygiene directly violates the right to education. When schools lack basic amenities like separate and clean toilets, clean water, soap, and sanitary pads, it becomes practically impossible for female students to attend school regularly. This situation further deepens gender inequality, as while boys’ education continues unhindered by any biological barriers, girls’ is held back by a natural process.
This inequality is contrary to the spirit of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, which underpin the concept of equality and a discrimination-free society. Equality of opportunity alone is not enough unless the means to access that opportunity are also equal. By ignoring menstrual hygiene, we inadvertently deprive girls of the equality the Constitution promises.
The Court also clarified that the lack of menstrual facilities violates the right of women and adolescent girls to a dignified life. When a student is forced to use unsafe and unscientific methods, it is not only a health crisis but also a direct assault on human dignity. Article 21 of the Constitution does not limit life to mere physical existence, but also ensures the right to live with self-respect and security.
This decision is also significant because it shatters the notion that sanitary pads or clean toilets are merely “additional amenities.” In fact, these are essential rights, without which neither health can be protected nor the right to education can be meaningful. In this context, this court order should also be seen as a social warning.
However, the biggest challenge with judicial orders in India lies in their effective implementation. Policies and guidelines often remain limited to mere announcements and files. The Supreme Court itself, acknowledging this concern, has stated that these decisions should not be confined to court orders or legal books, but should have a real impact on schools and the lives of students. It is mandatory to implement these directives uniformly in all schools—public and private, urban and rural.
In this context, the role of private schools is particularly important. Private educational institutions often consider themselves separate from government programs and social responsibility. The court’s order clearly rejects this thinking and states that the distinction between government and private schools is unacceptable when it comes to children’s rights. If private schools can charge high fees, they cannot shirk responsibility for the basic hygiene and health of female students.
Yet, it must be acknowledged that mandates and policies alone are not enough. Until societal thinking changes, such initiatives will remain incomplete. The silence, superstition, and shame surrounding menstruation further complicate this problem. Menstrual hygiene management in schools should not be limited to the distribution of pads; awareness, communication, and scientific information should also be part of the education process. Boys should not be excluded from this discussion, as the foundation of a sensitive and equal society is laid only when understanding is shared.
For the central and state governments, this order is not merely a compliance obligation, but an opportunity for improvement. Without adequate budget allocation, effective monitoring mechanisms, and clear accountability, this initiative cannot succeed. The court’s deadline clearly indicates that this issue cannot be postponed any longer.
Ultimately, this decision forces us to reflect on the fact that a society’s progress is measured by its treatment of its most vulnerable. Providing safe, hygienic, and respectful facilities to female students during menstruation is not a favor, but a constitutional obligation. The real test now is whether this decision moves from paper to practice. If it does, it will not only transform the landscape of schools but also be a decisive step toward changing the mindset that has, until now, considered menstruation a burden, not a right.
