Dr Jaya Thakur V. Government Of India: A Landmark Affirmation Of Menstrual Hygiene As A Constitutional Right [Citation: 2026 INSC 97]
- IJLLR Journal
- Mar 6
- 1 min read
By Kriti Sharma, B.Sc. LL.B. (Hons.) & Harsh Vardhan Singh, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), National Law Institute University, Bhopal
ABSTRACT
“In Dr Jaya Thakur v. Government of India (2026 INSC 97), the Supreme Court of India elevated menstrual hygiene management (MHM) to a constitutional entitlement, interpreting Articles 14, 21, and 21A to mandate state action against menstrual barriers to girls' education. Arising from a PIL highlighting NFHS-5 data (23% school absenteeism) and the dropout crisis, the Court addressed systemic failures in sanitary products, gender-segregated toilets, and disposal facilities, despite various schemes.
Framing issues around substantive equality (Article 14), dignity/privacy (Article 21), and education (Article 21A/RTE Act), the judgment rejected formal equality in favour of the "reasonable accommodation" of biological realities. Menstrual health emerged as integral to life with dignity, imposing positive state duties.
Further, by reading Article 21A alongside the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Court underscored the State’s positive duty to remove financial and infrastructural barriers that impede access to education.
While transformative in constitutionalising MHM, critiques note implementation gaps, funding inequities, and limited scope (schools only). This landmark affirms the judiciary's role in enforcing substantive equality, turning menstrual exclusion from a social taboo to a justiciable right.
The article argues that this ruling reinforces the transformative promise of the Constitution by affirming that biological realities cannot justify exclusion and that genuine equality demands structural accommodation rather than formal sameness.”
Keywords: Menstrual Hygiene Management, Substantive Equality, Education, Dignity, Privacy
