Karnataka High Court recalls stay on menstrual leave order, hearing on Dec 10

The Karnataka High Court has recalled its interim stay on a state notification expanding one-day monthly menstrual leave for women employees and will hear the government’s arguments on 10 December.

The order came after Justice Jyoti Mulimani initially paused the 20 November notification on Tuesday, following petitions from the Bangalore Hotels Association and Avirata Connectivity Systems. The Indian Express reported that the petitioners sought to quash the notification, calling it unconstitutional and procedurally flawed.

The policy at issue stems from a decision by the Karnataka Cabinet in October to grant women one paid day of menstrual leave per month. Parliamentary Affairs Minister H. K. Patil said at the time that the move followed positive outcomes observed in states such as Kerala, Odisha and Bihar, where similar provisions are already in force.

However, the government expanded the scope of the policy through the November notification, bringing all establishments covered by the Factories Act of 1948, the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act of 1961, the Plantations Labour Act of 1951, the Beedi and Cigar Workers Act of 1966, and the Motor Transport Workers Act of 1961 under its remit.

The Bangalore Hotels Association, which says it represents more than 1,500 establishments, argued in its petition that the notification exceeded the state’s legal authority. It contended that none of the cited labour laws require employers to offer menstrual leave, and that any such policy would need to be enacted through amendments rather than executive notification.

The Association also argued that the government had not followed due process, maintaining that a preliminary notification inviting public objections was required. It claimed that objections were sought only through the labour commissioner and not placed in the public domain, amounting to a breach of natural justice. The petition additionally warned that imposing menstrual leave could amount to “benevolent sexism,” potentially affecting women’s employment prospects in the private sector.

According to the Indian Express, Justice Mulimani granted a stay on Tuesday morning after asking whether stakeholders had been consulted before the notification was issued and being informed that they had not. But after Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty argued later in the day that a stay should not be granted, the court recalled its order and agreed to hear the matter fully on Wednesday.

The case highlights growing national debate over menstrual leave policies, with states and employers weighing the benefits of workplace accommodation against concerns over gender equity, cost implications and administrative feasibility. The court’s next hearing is expected to determine whether the expanded leave mandate can move forward or must be reconsidered.