Where do Indian States stand on menstrual leave policies? | Explained

The HinduIndependentCenter7 hr. ago

The Kerala High Court has ordered the state government to decide within three months on implementing paid menstrual leave for female KSRTC conductors, citing benefits like improved productivity and inclusivity. Similarly, the Madras High Court asked the Tamil Nadu government to provide updates on forming a committee to draft a menstrual leave policy for government employees and guidelines for private sector adoption. Currently, only five Indian states—Bihar, Odisha, Karnataka, Kerala, and Sikkim—have implemented menstrual leave policies, with variations in eligibility, duration, and scope. These policies primarily apply to government employees, some extend to private sector workers, and others target students. At the national level, there is no central legislation mandating menstrual leave, though several Private Members' Bills have been proposed over the years without enactment.

Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about existing menstrual leave policies across Indian states and mentions legislative efforts at the national level without taking a stance or using biased language. It reports on court orders and policy differences neutrally, avoiding any ideological framing

The HinduIndependentCenteryesterday

The Kerala High Court has directed the state government to consider implementing a paid menstrual leave policy for women conductors employed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) within three months. The court emphasized that such a policy would support employee welfare, reduce presenteeism, and create a more inclusive workplace. Women conductors currently face significant challenges due to the physically demanding nature of their jobs, including long working hours, lack of access to clean restrooms, and inadequate waste disposal systems for menstrual products. The petitioners cited Karnataka's existing policy, which provides one day of paid menstrual leave per month to women aged 18–52 across both government and private sectors, as a model for potential adoption.

Bias read (Center): The article presents the legal ruling and arguments from both the petitioners and the court without overtly favoring any side. It includes quotes from the court and details of the petitioners' claims but does not exhibit biased language or selective sourcing. The framing remains neutral, focusing on