First step against menstrual poverty: The right to menstrual health

In her satirical essay If Men Could Menstruate, Gloria Steinem examined the intersection of social power and biological functions by imagining a world in which men menstruate instead of women. She argued menstruation would then be celebrated as a marker of masculinity and superiority and would likely even attract federal funding for free distribution of sanitary products. This thought experiment prompts reflection on a world in which cisgendered men also menstruate. In such a world, menstruation would likely be recognised for what it inherently is—a routine biological process — much like eating, digestion and excretion. 

According to UNICEF, approximately 1.8 billion people menstruate globally every month, including not only girls and women but also transgender men and non-binary individuals. Yet, many menstruating persons are unable to manage their menstrual cycle in a dignified and healthy manner. Despite being a normal biological function, menstruation remains one of the most stigmatised biological processes, deeply entwined with taboos, notions of impurity and social exclusion. 

This stigma has far-reaching implications, affecting access to education, healthcare and participation in public life. In many communities, menstruating individuals are excluded from social and religious spaces, while widespread ignorance about menstrual health perpetuates misinformation, silence and shame. The lack of affordable menstrual products, adequate sanitation facilities, and menstrual awareness further exacerbates these challenges, particularly for those living in poverty or in marginalised communities. As a result, menstruation in the real world is not merely a biological experience but a persistent lived challenge.

In January 2026, the Supreme Court, while recognising the reality of ‘menstrual poverty’ and associated humiliation, held that the right to menstrual health and access to menstrual hygiene management (MHM) are integral to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court approached the issue from two interrelated perspectives.

First, it examined the right to education as a fundamental human right, as enshrined under Article 26 of the UDHR and Article 13 of ICESCR, and traced its evolution within the Indian constitutional jurisprudence. The Court emphasised that the right to education flows from the broader right to live with dignity, which is intrinsic to the right to life. Importantly, it clarified that the right to education shouldn’t be limited to the mere physical existence of schools; rather, it extends to a child’s ability to participate in education meaningfully and without discrimination. Adopting a substantive equality framework, the Court underscored the State’s obligations to remove barriers that prevent children from enjoying this right on an equal footing. In this context, the Court recognised that stigma, stereotyping and humiliation surrounding menstruation compel girls to manage their bodies according to circumstance rather than choice, thereby severely restricting their bodily autonomy, privacy and dignity.

Second, the Court affirmed that the right to menstrual health flows from the broader right to health, which Indian courts have consistently recognised as under Article 21. Consequently, the State bears a positive obligation to respect, protect and fulfil this right.

To operationalise these guarantees, the Court directed all States and Union Territories to ensure that every school—government-run or privately managed, in both urban and rural areas—is equipped with functional gender-segregated toilets with running water; private, accessible and disability-friendly toilets; adequate handwashing facilities; free biodegradable ASTM D-6954-compliant sanitary napkins; spare innerwear, uniform and disposal bags; safe disposal mechanisms; and comprehensive menstrual health awareness programmes. 

Menstrual poverty remains a lived reality for many in India. Under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme, sanitary napkin vending machines have been installed in schools in states such as Assam, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Manipur, Meghalaya, and the Union Territories of Leh and Ladakh, enabling girls to purchase sanitary products. Several states, including Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana, have schemes providing free sanitary napkins to school-going girls. However, most of the schemes are either school-centric and/or require payment to be made for purchasing sanitary products. 

Biodegradable sanitary pads are available at Jan Aushadhi Kendras (JAK) for the larger community at a subsidised rate of Re 1 per pad. Given that an average menstruating person may require 10–25 pads per month, issues of affordability and accessibility persist. These products are on a payment basis, and JAKs are predominantly located in urban areas, limiting access for rural populations. Consequently, a 16-year-old menstruating girl, or a 30-year-old non-earning female living in a rural area and not attending school, is unlikely to have reliable access to sanitary products, forcing them to rely on secretive and unhygienic methods of menstrual management.

While the judgment marks a transformative step towards social justice, it also prompts a broader reflection on menstrual poverty and advances the discourse towards the recognising of the right to menstrual health for a wider spectrum of menstruating individuals. Addressing this issue effectively requires expanding the conversation beyond schools and classrooms to include all menstruating individuals—cisgender women, transgender men, girls, and older women, school-going or not.

It is important to note that not every human being menstruates; however, menstrual health initiatives must recognise and include all individuals who menstruate, regardless of gender identity, age, or social circumstances.

The writer is Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Director, Centre for Health Law, Policy and Ethics at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)