The Supreme Court has warned State and Union Territory administrations over delays in reporting compliance with menstrual hygiene directions for schoolgirls. (Img: Pinterest)
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has cautioned that Chief Secretaries of States and Union Territories may face contempt proceedings if their administrations fail to furnish details on compliance with its directions to ensure menstrual hygiene facilities for schoolgirls. Expressing disquiet over the absence of implementation reports despite repeated requests, the Court underscored that a judicial declaration of fundamental rights cannot be reduced to an exercise in paper compliance.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan granted the States and Union Territories a final opportunity to submit the requisite information on the implementation of the Court’s directions. The Bench indicated that it would consider issuing contempt notices to the concerned Chief Secretaries if the authorities continued to withhold the information sought.
The Court questioned whether its judgment recognising menstrual health as an integral facet of the right to life would have any practical consequence if the directions remained unimplemented. “If what we have said in the judgment is only going to remain on paper, how is the Union, States/UTs going to give effect to this fundamental right?” the Bench asked.
The Bench expressed concern over the failure of several States and Union Territories to respond to the Union government’s requests for compliance-related information. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that the Centre had written to the respective administrations seeking details of the measures undertaken to implement the judgment, but responses remained outstanding from several authorities.
The Court directed the Union government to secure written responses from every State and Union Territory, emphasising that the exercise must establish the actual status of implementation rather than merely document administrative assurances.
The Bench indicated that the responses should provide a clear account of the facilities available in schools, the deficiencies that persist and the steps proposed to remedy them. It also suggested that the Centre formulate a structured questionnaire to obtain comparable, State-wise and Union Territory-wise information.
The proceedings arise from the Supreme Court’s January 30 judgment in Dr Jaya Thakur v. Government of India, in which it recognised menstrual health as an essential component of the right to life and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The judgment sought to address the structural barriers that impede girls’ access to education, particularly in underserved and remote areas, where inadequate sanitation and the absence of menstrual hygiene facilities can undermine school attendance and participation.
The Court’s directions were intended to translate the constitutional guarantee into tangible conditions within educational institutions. The latest proceedings reflect its concern that the efficacy of those directions depends on demonstrable compliance by the authorities responsible for implementation.
Under the directions issued by the Court, government and private schools are required to ensure access to functional, gender-segregated toilets with running water, alongside sanitation facilities accessible to children with disabilities.
The prescribed measures also include the provision of free sanitary napkins, designated menstrual hygiene management corners, covered disposal bins and safe systems for menstrual waste disposal. The Court has further stressed the need to move progressively towards environmentally sustainable menstrual products.
The Bench has made clear that compliance cannot be assessed solely through general declarations that the directions have been followed. Authorities must establish whether the requisite facilities are operational and accessible to students in practice.
The Court had revisited the implementation question in its September 1 order, directing States and Union Territories to identify infrastructural shortcomings and explain the measures and timelines proposed to address them.
It had expressed reservations about reports that relied on broad assurances or simple affirmative and negative responses without demonstrating whether the required facilities were actually available. The authorities were expected to identify schools where infrastructure remained deficient, specify the nature of those deficiencies and indicate when corrective measures would be completed.
The Bench’s latest intervention reinforces the obligation of the executive authorities to provide verifiable information on compliance with binding judicial directions. The prospect of contempt proceedings against Chief Secretaries signals that responsibility for implementation cannot be indefinitely deferred through administrative inaction.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on December 14, when the Court is expected to review the compliance information furnished by the Centre, States and Union Territories.
