Supreme Court gives States last chance on menstrual hygiene compliance, with contempt notice to Chief Secretaries as the stated consequence for any State or Union Territory that stays silent on the Union’s requests for information about school implementation of its judgment.
New Delhi: Silence will now invite contempt notice to the Chief Secretaries: the Supreme Court has given States and Union Territories “one last opportunity” to answer the Union’s requests for information on how its judgment recognising menstrual hygiene as part of the right to life is being implemented in schools, failing which it will issue that notice when the matter returns [Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India and Others].
The order of October 13, 2026 was passed by a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1000 of 2022, on IA No. 138830/2026 (intervention/impleadment) and IA No. 138831/2026 (modification). Advocate V.V. Gautam appeared for the petitioner and Additional Solicitors General Aishwarya Bhati and Archana Pathak Dave for the Union, with Advocates General and counsel for several States and Union Territories also present.
Why the Bench wanted answers
The Additional Solicitor General told the Court that the Union has taken up the issue seriously with every State and Union Territory, which have yet to respond. The Bench asked why they do not reply when the Union seeks information. It recalled that it had declared menstrual hygiene part of the fundamental right under Article 21, and asked how that right would be implemented if the judgment “remains on paper”. Its concern, the Court said, is for young girls, particularly in remote areas, who are giving up education because of menstrual hygiene problems.
What the Union must now do
The Union has to take the issue up with each State and Union Territory and call for written information on the steps taken to give effect to the judgment. It must study the judgment again and seek information on every aspect, paying special attention to paragraphs 11 and 13 to 23 of the September 1 order, which flagged the discrepancies in the data. To meet paragraph 23 of that order, the Union may prepare a questionnaire and seek replies from each State and Union Territory.
Should the Union report at the next hearing that some have not responded, the Court will proceed to issue contempt notice to the concerned Chief Secretaries. The Union has been given sufficient time for the exercise, and the matter is listed on December 14, 2026 at 2:30 PM.
The January judgment and the September review
The judgment of January 30, 2026 held menstrual hygiene to be a facet of the right to life under Article 21 and directed pan-India implementation of the Union’s Menstrual Hygiene Policy for School-going Girls (Classes 6 to 12) in government and private schools, urban and rural. Its standards include functional, gender-segregated toilets with running water, accessible toilets for children with disabilities, free sanitary napkins, menstrual hygiene management corners, covered bins and safe waste disposal.
When the same Bench reviewed compliance on September 1, 2026, it said it was dissatisfied with how compliance was being reported. Some responses were a formality, it found, with certain States offering only statistics or yes/no answers, and it pointed to mismatches between claimed coverage and school totals in the data on toilets, handwashing, vending machines and waste disposal. The Union’s affidavit put the number of girls’ toilets still to be made functional at 39,439, of which 30,458 had been built, 4,236 were under construction and 4,745 remained a gap.
The Court directed that future reports focus on gaps, their causes and the time needed to close them, that District Education Officers form teams of teachers for surprise inspections of schools, and that States gradually move towards eco-friendly menstrual products. It listed the matter for September 29.
A checkpoint in December
Where the Court once reviewed State-wise data itself, it has now routed the exercise through the Union and attached a stated consequence to silence: contempt notice to the top administrative officer of each State or Union Territory that does not respond. The December 14 hearing is the checkpoint, since the Union must report then on who has answered. For schools, the practical test remains the list of facilities the January judgment made mandatory, from working toilets and water to napkins and disposal.
Case Title: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India and Others [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1000 of 2022]
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 13, 2026
Appearances: Advocate V.V. Gautam for the petitioner; Additional Solicitors General Aishwarya Bhati and Archana Pathak Dave for the Union, with Advocates General and counsel for several States and Union Territories