New Delhi: The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking the formulation of national guidelines to protect the privacy, dignity, and bodily autonomy of women and girls in workplaces and educational institutions. The petition seeks judicial intervention following reports of coercive and degrading practices involving the verification of menstrual status by institutional authorities.
The petition has been filed in response to an incident at Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak, where three female sanitation workers were allegedly forced to send photographs of their used sanitary pads as proof of menstruation after seeking leave for period-related discomfort. It is alleged that the women were verbally abused and intimidated by a superior officer to compel compliance. The SCBA states that this incident highlights the absence of clear legal or administrative safeguards protecting women from such practices.
The petition also refers to earlier incidents in different states to demonstrate the recurrence of similar conduct. It cites the 2020 Gujarat case in which hostel students were allegedly compelled to remove their undergarments to prove they were not menstruating; a 2017 Uttar Pradesh incident where schoolgirls were reportedly made to undergo physical checks for menstrual stains; and a 2025 Maharashtra case where girls were subjected to inspection following an order from the school principal. The SCBA states that these incidents, though separated by time and location, reflect a continuing pattern inconsistent with constitutional protections.
The petition asserts that these practices violate the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, as they intrude upon bodily integrity, autonomy, and dignity. It submits that such actions constitute “a grave and disproportionate interference with the most private sphere of human existence.” The Association argues that these acts are not isolated instances of misconduct but stem from a systemic absence of policy and oversight concerning menstrual privacy and workplace dignity.
The petition relies on the Constitution Bench judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as intrinsic to Articles 14, 19, and 21, encompassing decisional autonomy and bodily integrity. The plea emphasizes that compelling women to provide proof of menstruation violates the standards of legality, necessity, and proportionality laid down in that case.
The SCBA also places reliance on Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608, where the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity, and on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248, which expanded the interpretation of Article 21 to include fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness in administrative actions. The petition further cites People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399, where the Court reaffirmed privacy as an essential component of the right to life.
In support of its prayer for judicial intervention, the SCBA cites Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241, in which the Supreme Court framed guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace in the absence of statutory legislation. The petition submits that a similar approach is warranted here, as there exists no statutory or regulatory framework governing the protection of menstrual dignity or privacy in workplaces or educational institutions. It argues that the absence of such safeguards has created a legal vacuum enabling arbitrary and degrading practices.
The Association also relies on Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court recognized reproductive autonomy as an essential part of a woman’s personal liberty under Article 21. Extending this reasoning, the petition asserts that menstrual autonomy—encompassing the right to privacy and dignity—must be protected from institutional coercion in matters of bodily and reproductive health.
The petition seeks the Court’s intervention through binding directions to the Union of India and the State Governments. It prays for a direction to the Ministry of Women and Child Development, the Ministry of Labour and Employment, and the Ministry of Education to frame uniform national guidelines ensuring that no woman or girl is subjected to physical or photographic verification of menstruation or any other invasive practice.
It further seeks the formulation of institutional protocols requiring all educational and workplace institutions to adopt internal “Menstrual Dignity and Privacy Policies” providing mechanisms for grievance redressal, accountability, and awareness. The SCBA also requests that institutions be mandated to file periodic compliance reports before appropriate authorities and submit annual updates to the Supreme Court until comprehensive legislation is enacted.
The petition additionally prays for an inquiry into the MDU, Rohtak incident and for accountability to be fixed on the responsible officials. It requests that the Supreme Court declare any form of forced verification of menstruation or coercive demands for physical proof as impermissible and unconstitutional.
The plea submits that such practices violate not only individual privacy but also the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14, as they result in discriminatory treatment based on gender and physiological conditions. It further states that these acts undermine the principle of substantive equality by subjecting women to humiliating scrutiny with no rational nexus to any legitimate administrative objective.
The petition emphasizes the State’s positive obligation to safeguard dignity and privacy under constitutional jurisprudence. It asserts that this obligation extends to all institutions, governmental as well as private, that exercise regulatory or supervisory control over employees or students. The absence of a codified standard, the plea submits, has resulted in inconsistent practices, leaving individuals vulnerable to arbitrary and invasive conduct.
The SCBA argues that judicial directions are necessary to bridge this policy gap pending the enactment of comprehensive legislation. The petition draws parallels with earlier instances where the Supreme Court issued judicially enforceable guidelines in the absence of legislation, such as the D.K. Basu guidelines on arrest and detention and the Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 ruling mandating registration of FIRs.
The Association submits that the present issue similarly warrants immediate judicial intervention, as it concerns the protection of non-derogable constitutional rights. It maintains that no woman or girl should be compelled to disclose, prove, or justify her menstrual status and that all such practices must be explicitly prohibited through enforceable judicial guidelines.
The plea further submits that the guidelines must include provisions mandating sensitization programs and training for staff and administrators in workplaces and educational institutions to ensure adherence to standards of privacy and dignity. It suggests the creation of a national-level oversight mechanism to monitor compliance and address grievances arising from violations.
In conclusion, the petition states that the coercive verification of menstruation or demand for proof of menstrual status amounts to an affront to the constitutional guarantees of dignity, privacy, and bodily integrity. It seeks judicial recognition of menstrual dignity as an inseparable component of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and calls for immediate directions to prevent the recurrence of such practices through national-level regulation.
Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Petitioner: Supreme Court Bar Association
Provision Invoked: Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Date of Filing: November 11, 2025
