Polity · GS2.3, GS1.6 · 2026-10-19 · 3 min read · 2026-10-19-am
Supreme Court Criticizes States and UTs for Ignoring Menstrual Hygiene Judgment
The Supreme Court expressed displeasure over States and Union Territories not responding to the Centre on implementing its judgment that menstrual hygiene is a fundamental right under Article 21. This highlights the judiciary's role in enforcing social welfare and the challenges in Centre-State coordination.
The Supreme Court has mandated States and UTs to implement menstrual hygiene as a fundamental right under Article 21 and criticized their lack of response to the Centre's follow-up.
Why is this in the news?
On October 18, 2026, the Supreme Court expressed displeasure over States and UTs not responding to the Centre on the implementation of its judgment declaring menstrual hygiene a fundamental right under Article 21.
What did the Supreme Court rule about menstrual hygiene?
- Fundamental right under Article 21. The Supreme Court ruled on January 30 that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to menstrual health and hygiene.
- School facilities mandated. The Court directed all schools, government or private, in urban and rural areas to provide functional, gender-segregated toilets with usable water connectivity and free sanitary napkins to girl students.
Why has the Supreme Court expressed displeasure over States and UTs?
- Lack of response to Centre. States and Union Territories have not responded to the Centre's requests for information on how they are implementing the Court's judgment on menstrual hygiene.
- Concern over implementation. The Bench questioned how the fundamental right would be given effect if the judgment remains only on paper and warned of contempt notices if States/UTs continue to ignore the directions.
What steps has the Centre taken and what is expected next?
- Centre's follow-up. The Centre has taken the issue seriously and requested States and UTs to report on implementation, but many have not responded.
- Court's directive to Centre. The Supreme Court directed the Centre to call for detailed information from each State and UT on steps taken and warned of contempt proceedings if responses are not received by the next hearing.
- Focus on school infrastructure. The Court emphasized the need for gender-segregated, functional toilets with water connectivity in schools as a key part of menstrual hygiene management.
Key numbers
| Figure | What it measures | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 30,458 | Number of gender-segregated toilets with washing facilities constructed in schools across India | |
| 4,236 | Number of gender-segregated toilets under construction in schools across India |
Back to basics: Right to Life under Article 21
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has interpreted this right expansively to include various aspects essential to a dignified life, such as health and hygiene. Declaring menstrual hygiene as part of this right means the State must ensure facilities and policies that uphold menstrual health.
Practice: MCQ, Mains and revision
Prelims MCQ
Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's judgment on menstrual hygiene: 1. The Supreme Court declared menstrual hygiene as part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. 2. The Court directed all schools to provide free sanitary napkins and gender-segregated toilets with water connectivity. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Answer and trap
Answer: (c). A trap could be confusing the Court's directive as applying only to government schools, but the judgment applies to both government and private schools.
Mains question (15 marks)
Examine the role of judicial activism in enforcing social welfare policies with reference to the Supreme Court's judgment on menstrual hygiene as a fundamental right.
Examine: Analyze how the judiciary has intervened to protect menstrual hygiene rights and the challenges in implementation.
Intro: Judicial activism has expanded the scope of fundamental rights to include social welfare issues such as menstrual hygiene.
- The Supreme Court declared menstrual hygiene a part of the right to life under Article 21, mandating State action.
- The Court issued specific directions for schools to provide sanitary facilities and free sanitary napkins to girl students.
- Despite the judgment, States and UTs have been slow to respond, highlighting challenges in Centre-State coordination and enforcement.
- The Court's threat of contempt notices reflects its proactive role in ensuring compliance with social welfare directives.
Conclusion: The judgment exemplifies judicial activism's potential to advance social welfare, though effective implementation requires cooperation from all government levels.
Quick revision
- What fundamental right did the Supreme Court link menstrual hygiene to?
- The Supreme Court linked menstrual hygiene to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- What facilities did the Supreme Court direct schools to provide for menstrual hygiene?
- Schools must provide functional, gender-segregated toilets with water connectivity and free sanitary napkins to girl students.
- What action did the Supreme Court threaten if States and UTs fail to respond on implementation?
- The Court threatened to issue contempt notices to the concerned chief secretaries of States and UTs.
Sources
- [1] The Hindu: Menstrual hygiene: Supreme Court expresses displeasure over States, UTs not responding to Centre · 2026-10-18 · newspaper