[By Swarnava Hati, second year LL. M. student at Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University, New Delhi]
Introduction
The Karnataka Menstrual Leave and Hygiene Bill, 2025 (the ‘Bill’) was drafted by the Law Commission of Karnataka, based on the biological differences between men and women, while emphasizing their equality.[i] The intent is not to equate them, but to ensure their substantive equality by protecting women from the difficulties they face during menstruation. In developing the Bill, the Law Commission has consulted government bodies, trade unions, women’s wings of political parties, lawyers, and medical professionals.[ii] It draws on the menstrual leave policies of other jurisdictions and positions itself as fulfilling a positive obligation under the Constitution of India.[iii]
The introductory part of the Bill emphasizes the objective of creating an inclusive, supportive, and equitable workplace that ensures women’s dignity. In this regard, the Bill also addresses gender sensitization and mandates the provision of waste bins, tissue paper, toilet bags, and other facilities that support menstruating women. Apart from this, the Bill primarily examines the issue through the lens of productivity and how this productivity is affected by physical limitations. It repeatedly emphasizes that presenteeism, the practice of attending the workplace while physically unwell, is antithetical to productivity. The physical unwellness aspect has to do with bleeding, belly cramps, back pain, fatigue, and nausea. This makes the Bill revolve around the three P’s: physical exhaustion, productivity deficiency, and protection from discrimination. This is the core idea behind the objective and its rationale.[iv]
The Bill’s patriarchal gaze is reflected in the legislative intent and provisions. The Law Commission deems it suitable to address the widespread patriarchal perception that women will misuse the benefits conferred by the Bill.[v] Though it has rejected this notion by citing the Japanese example of only 0.9% of women availing of menstrual leave, the necessity of addressing it reflects a patriarchal psyche. Further, the language of the punitive provision,[vi] which addresses false complaints filed in violation of this Bill, is worth noting. Assuming that a complaint would lie against the employer in a government or private organization, the phrase ‘allegations levelled against him’ in this provision is an aberration from an increasing trend of gender-neutral lexicon in India. The gendered language also means that complaints can only be directed against a biological man. This indicates three things: i) the government/private entity has a male identity, ii) it can never be filed against a woman, and iii) false complaints are always filed against individual men. This psyche perpetuates the perpetual victimhood of men.
Furthermore, the Bill primarily concerns itself with the formal sector and does not encompass the informal sector. Provisions for remote work or work-from-home arrangements have been made that may work well for formal sector women, but not for those in the informal sector. This makes the Bill accessible only to a particular class of people. As for enforcement, a new administrative body, the Karnataka Menstrual Leave and Hygiene Authority, is responsible for implementing the Bill.[vii] Overall, the Bill appears to be carefully drafted, with an effort to be normatively sensitive. Nevertheless, the objective of the Bill is not epistemically women-friendly but concerns productivity. This aspect will be discussed at length subsequently.
Theoretical Framework
In analyzing the epistemic flaws in the Bill, the standpoint epistemology is employed as the analytical framework. The reason for not applying the rationalist epistemology is that the objectivity and neutrality that it applies cannot question empirical assumptions in the law, as the notions of knowability or the idea that all truths are known are subject to debate. The postmodernist tool has not been utilized because, though they try to dispose of universalities and imperialist epistemes, they have not filled the vacuum. Hartsock argues that postmodernists are stuck in Enlightenment ideas and have failed to offer any emancipatory alternatives.[viii] She conceives it as a theory of despair and hopelessness. Citing W.E.B. Du Bois’s concept of double consciousness, she explains how the marginalized are always looking at themselves through the eyes of others.[ix]
The foundations of standpoint epistemology are found in Rose’s interesting work, where she analyses women’s roles in scientific laboratories, arguing that feminist epistemologies cannot arise there because women are prohibited from becoming scientific knowers and, in the process of knowledge production, forget that they are women.[x] Flax would say that patriarchy has seeped into the knowledge systems that were supposed to be emancipatory.[xi] To counter this patriarchal knowledge system, she says that the masculine notion of the self and other needs to be questioned. Building on this, Harding says that standpoint epistemology prioritizes the feminist episteme to overcome the Enlightenment and bourgeois vision of the world.[xii] Hartsock would argue that the marginalized (here, women) need to view themselves both as the makers of history and as the objects and victims of those who have written the history.[xiii] She says that this bourgeois subordination can be opposed by science that is grounded in women’s experience, in contradiction to the patriarchy-dominated science.[xiv] This can also be understood through Smith’s notion of women as subjects of inquiry and inquirers of scientific knowledge, countering the male-dominated nature of scientific knowledge.[xv] In this way, the women’s contribution to society has to be generalized, and in this process, the bourgeois science can be opposed. This understanding serves as a pathway for visiting the lapses in the Bill.
Analysis and Findings
This theoretical framework has been adopted to analyze the Bill because the bourgeois patriarchal understanding of society shapes the feminist rationale it advances. The legislative intent to maintain a productive workforce is reflected in the Law Commission’s opening statement and the Bill.[xvi] Further, the fact that the Bill caters only to the formal sector reveals its bourgeois nature. The Bill also exhibits a piecemeal reformist attitude because it does not address the ‘woman question’. It fails to address the structural subordination faced by women during menstruation and is not rooted in genuine feminist logic, essentially because it does not ‘ask the woman question.’[xvii] Instead, it is predominantly a male understanding that influences the feminist base here.
The fact that it addresses the male suspicion that women will misuse the Bill reveals its male-centric outlook. This stems from a male-dominated knowledge system that does not view women’s issues from the standpoint of a woman. Thus, it becomes a feeder into the market logic, and in this process, the Bill’s objective is compromised. Though the Bill claims to have consulted civil society and adopted feminist understandings, the flawed episteme reveals that women have not been seriously considered in its making.
The Bill is problematic as it aims to enhance employee productivity only in the formal sector. It prescribes two days of leave per month and requires that the woman be employed by the government or a private establishment.[xviii] The fact that remote and hybrid work modes are available to employees also reflects the Bill’s elitist character.[xix] In this way, it has sought to address presenteeism while remaining completely oblivious to the underlying causes of subordination. This makes the Bill reproduce the male-centric understanding of the difficulties faced by the women’s menstruating body, ignoring the societal stigmas and discriminatory practices attached to it. The stinging questions of why women are considered less competent during menstruation have not been addressed.[xx] The uncalculated burden of household chores, which falls disproportionately on women, has also not been accounted for. Furthermore, the Bill has failed to analyze why women do not lead most companies or establishments.[xxi] Catherine MacKinnon’s argument that male hegemony does not concern itself with what women want aptly describes this problematic aspect of the Bill, as it imposes its own understanding rather than through a woman’s standpoint.[xxii]
King’s arguments are also relevant in analyzing the Bill, where she says that when menstrual leave policies concern the female body more than the social stigmas and the gender inequality, it is problematic and, in all probability, it would perpetuate oppression.[xxiii] It is because such policies conceive the body as a mere biological entity and fail to consider the stigmas attached to it. They reinforce the heterosexist notion of not addressing the menstrual stigma.[xxiv] This faultline also got reflected when
Furthermore, the Bill’s bourgeois nature in failing to address the informal sector is deplorable. Approximately 61.2% of global employment is in the informal sector.[xxv] In India, the percentage of women workers in the informal sector is higher than that of men. Their labour is hardly visible when they are domestic or home-based workers.[xxvi] The informal sector is also poorly covered by social security schemes, making workers extremely vulnerable[xxvii]. Other layers of discrimination aggravate this vulnerability. For example, 92.1% of women workers in the informal sector come from Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Muslim backgrounds.[xxviii] Thus, there is an additional caste and religion-based discrimination which worsens their situation.
By considering only the formal sector and relying on privileged solutions such as hybrid work or remote work, the Bill does not address a significant portion of the women’s population. It does not account for a substantial population of poor women who mostly work in the informal sector. These women are poorer than their male counterparts, earning only half as much as men. Adding to this, they are engaged in household activities which go unnoticed, and Shiney rightly points out that due to the unacknowledged contribution of women in the modes of economic and social production, there is a ‘hidden’ benefit for men in the labour market.[xxix] This demonstrates the Bill’s lack of inclusivity.
That said, the Bill has also taken progressive steps that are worth appreciating. It has an inclusive definition of a menstruating person, to include transgender persons.[xxx] A transgender person has also been defined to include transgender men and non-binary people.[xxxi] This can be seen as a rupture that distinguishes sexual orientation from gender. The Bill also obliges the state and the employer to provide biodegradable sanitary pads, menstrual cups, and tampons.[xxxii] Adequate infrastructure for the secure disposal of menstrual discharge has to be ensured at the workplace.[xxxiii] As part of an awareness drive, it mandates that 28 May be celebrated as Menstrual Hygiene Day at all levels of the state government.[xxxiv] Along with this, the Bill envisages gender sensitization for the employers, which is a necessary measure.[xxxv] It also provides for punitive measures in cases where compliance is not met.[xxxvi] These are some positive and progressive aspects of the Bill.
However, the ingrained epistemic flaws must be examined. These flaws must be addressed through an emancipatory approach that allows women to speak for themselves. The opinions of women who face discrimination daily need to be incorporated. On these lines, the previously referred to Apex Court’s order,[xxxvii] which suggested that the central government frame a model policy after consultation with relevant stakeholders, is important.[xxxviii] Its observations and pathways are plausible, and the issues raised are also relevant for this Bill’s postmortem. Greater consultations and structural considerations would make this Bill more inclusive and counter the structural subordination of women. It would better tackle the notion of viewing women solely through the capitalist logic of productivity and the male notion of protecting women’s dignity.
[i] The Karnataka Menstrual Leave and Hygiene Bill, 2025, at 1-8.
[ii] Sixty-Second Report of the Law Commission of Karnataka, 2025, at 1-10.
[iii] ibid, at 2-3.
[iv] The Menstrual Bill 2025, n. i, at i-iii.
[v] Law Commission Report 2025, n. ii, at 5.
[vi] The Menstrual Bill 2025, n. i, s 7(vi).
[vii] The Menstrual Bill 2025, n. i, s 5(1).
[viii] Nancy C.M. Hartsock, “Postmodernism and Political Change: Issues for Feminist Theory”, Cultural Critique, vol. 14, (1989), at 15-33.
[ix] W.E.B. Du Bois and M. Marable, The Souls of Black Folk, (Routledge, 2015), at 1-189.
[x] Hilary Rose,”Hand, Brain, and Heart: A Feminist Epistemology for the Natural Sciences.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 9, no. 1, (1983), at 73-90.
[xi] Jane Flax, “Postmodernism and Gender Relations in Feminist Theory”, vol. 12, no. 4, (1987), at 621-643.
[xii] S.G. Harding, The Science Question in Feminism, (Cornell University Press, 1986), at 1-263.
[xiii] Hartsock, n. vii, at 32.
[xiv] Nancy C.M. Hartsock, “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism”, in Feminist Social Thought, (Routledge, 1997), at 461-484.
[xv] D.E. Smith, The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology,(University of Toronto Press, 1987), at 1-147.
[xvi] Law Commission Report 2025, n. ii, at 1.
[xvii] Katharine T. Bartlett, “Feminist Legal Methods”, Harvard Law Review, vol. 103, no.4, (1990), at 829-888.
[xviii] The Menstrual Bill 2025, n. i, s 3(a).
[xix] The Menstrual Bill 2025, n. i, s 3(b)(iii).
[xx] Roberts Tomi-Ann, Jamie L Goldenberg, Cathleen Power and Tom Pyszczynski, ‘‘Feminine Protection’: The Effects of Menstruation on Attitudes towards Women”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 2, (2002), at131–139.
[xxi] Centre for Research and Planning, Supreme Court of India, White Paper on Menstrual Leave, 2025, at 1-59.
[xxii] Catherine MacKinnon, “Feminism, Marxism, method, and the state: An agenda for theory”, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 7, no. 3, (1982), at 515-544.
[xxiii] Sally King, “Menstrual Leave: Good Intention, Poor Solution.” in H. Juliet and L.D. Torres, Aligning Perspectives in Gender Mainstreaming, (Springer, 2020), at 151–176.
[xxiv] Meaghan Furlano, “Disrupting menstrual stigma at work? A thematic analysis of menstrual leave policy announcements across five countries”, Culture, Health & Sexuality, vol. 27, no. 8, (2025), at 1023-1038.
[xxv] International Labour Office, Women and Men in the Informal Economy: A Statistical Picture (Third Edition), 2018, at 14.
[xxvi] Martha A. Chen and Shalini Sinha, “Home-based workers and cities”, Environment and Urbanization, vol. 28, no. 2, (2016), at 343-358.
[xxvii] Institute for What Works to Advance Gender Equality (IWWAGE), Women in the Indian Informal Economy, 2021, at 1-7.
[xxviii] ibid, at 5.
[xxix] Shiney Chakraborty, “COVID-19 and women informal sector workers in India”, Economic & Political Weekly, vol. 55, no. 35, (2020), at 17-21.
[xxx] The Menstrual Bill 2025, n. i, s 2 (c).
[xxxi] The Menstrual Bill 2025, n. i, s 2 (f).
[xxxii] The Menstrual Bill 2025, n. i, s 4 (a).
[xxxiii] The Menstrual Bill 2025, n. i, s 4 (b).
[xxxiv] The Menstrual Bill 2025, n. i, s 4 (c).
[xxxv] The Menstrual Bill 2025, n. i, at iii.
[xxxvi] The Menstrual Bill 2025, n. i, s 9.
[xxxvii] Bawa, n. xxv.
[xxxviii] Shailendra Mani Tripathi v Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Union of India and Ors. [2026] SCI 73736/2025.
Leave a Reply