Walk into a pharmacy or supermarket in India and the pattern is familiar. Disposable razors marketed to women often cost more than similar products for men. A pink loofah may be priced above a blue one. Shampoos, deodorants and skincare products carry a premium when sold as women’s products.
This is the pink tax. It is not an official tax. It is a pricing practice that raises the cost of everyday consumption for women. In a country still struggling with gender equality, this is not a minor consumer irritant. It is an economic issue that affects dignity, disposable income and household welfare.
READ | Fixing the gender gap in India’s ride-hailing services
Pink tax and women’s disposable income
India is a consumption-led economy. Private final consumption expenditure accounts for more than half of GDP. Women make up nearly half the population, but their labour force participation remains low by global standards. This makes the price of essential and semi-essential goods more important, not less.
The pink tax erodes real disposable income. A woman who pays more for clothing, personal care and hygiene products loses money that could have gone into savings, education, health or better consumption. The effect is cumulative. The annual burden may look small item by item, but it compounds across years and across millions of consumers.
The burden is sharper because women already face lower earnings. A gender wage gap and a gender price gap together create a double penalty. Women earn less and often pay more for comparable goods. That reduces their ability to save, invest and participate in formal financial systems. For an economy that needs a wider middle class and higher household resilience, this is a leak in the system.
Period poverty is the most visible form of this burden. When menstrual hygiene products are unaffordable, girls miss school and women compromise on health. The consequences move beyond household budgets. Lower school attendance, poor menstrual hygiene and reduced mobility affect education, health outcomes and lifetime earnings. A biological necessity should not become an economic barrier.
READ | Gender statistics, unpaid work, and the limits of labour data
Global action against pink tax
Several countries have recognised this problem through tax and regulatory changes. Canada removed federal sales tax on menstrual products in 2015. Australia removed GST on sanitary products in 2019. Germany reduced tax on menstrual products by reclassifying them as essential goods. The United Kingdom removed VAT on menstrual products in 2021.
These actions matter because they treat menstrual hygiene as a necessity, not a luxury. But the debate in many countries has also moved beyond period products. Gender-based pricing in personal care, clothing and services has drawn regulatory attention. Some jurisdictions have examined transparency requirements and restrictions on discriminatory pricing.
India’s debate remains narrower. It focuses mainly on menstrual hygiene. That is necessary, but not sufficient. The wider market for personal care, clothing, healthcare, insurance and financial products remains largely outside scrutiny. In a country seeking to improve women’s economic participation, that gap is hard to justify.
READ | Digital gender gap a drag on India’s growth story
India’s policy response to pink tax
India has taken one important step. In July 2018, the GST Council reduced the tax on sanitary napkins from 12% to zero. The decision followed pressure from civil society, women’s groups and lawmakers. It recognised that taxing menstrual hygiene products was unfair and economically regressive.
The government has also used the Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana to make subsidised sanitary pads available under the Suvidha brand through Jan Aushadhi Kendras. This is a useful intervention against period poverty, especially for low-income households. Official releases state that Suvidha pads are sold at ₹1 per pad through Jan Aushadhi Kendras.
But these measures address only one part of the pink tax. They do not deal with gendered pricing across consumer markets. India has no dedicated regulatory framework that prohibits gender-based price discrimination in products and services. There is no mandatory pricing transparency rule that requires manufacturers or service providers to justify price differences between comparable goods marketed to men and women.
The harder problem is measurement. India has corrected the tax treatment of sanitary napkins, but it has not measured gendered pricing across the wider consumer market. The pink tax is not confined to menstrual products. It can appear in razors, deodorants, apparel, salon services, dry cleaning, healthcare packages and online recommendations. Without category-level data, regulators cannot distinguish legitimate cost differences from discriminatory pricing. The Department of Consumer Affairs and the Central Consumer Protection Authority already have a mandate to act on consumer rights, unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements.
The CCPA was established under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and has been functioning since July 2020. That mandate should now be used to commission a market study across products, services and e-commerce platforms. India does not need rhetoric on the pink tax; it needs evidence, disclosure and enforcement.
The next step should be evidence-based. India needs a comprehensive study of gender-based pricing across personal care, clothing, hygiene, healthcare, insurance and financial products. Consumer protection policy should treat fair pricing across genders as a legitimate objective. Manufacturers and service providers should be asked to explain price differences when products are substantially similar.
The pink tax should not be treated only as a women’s issue. It is also a problem of market fairness and economic efficiency. When half the population pays more for comparable goods while earning less, the damage is not confined to individual consumers. It weakens savings, reduces welfare and deepens inequality.
India wants to become a developed economy by 2047. That ambition cannot rest on a market that quietly penalises women for routine consumption. The GST reform of 2018 was a useful beginning. It should now lead to a wider policy response against gendered pricing.
Anvita Tomar is a UG student and Dr Reeta Tomar is Assistant Professor at CHRIST University, Delhi NCR Campus.