Karnataka’s cabinet recently approved the Menstrual Leave Policy 2025, granting all working women — in both government and private sectors — one paid day off each month, amounting to 12 in a year. The move makes Karnataka the first Indian state to universalise menstrual leave across sectors, from garment factories to IT firms.
Predictably, the decision has sparked debate: advocates hail it as a step towards addressing workplace gender inequality, while critics fear it may unintentionally deepen stereotypes about women’s capacity for work. Menstrual leave, in short, can correct part of the imbalance — but only if implemented with care to prevent misuse and stigma.
READ I Crypto policy shift: From caution to coordination
Why menstrual leave matters
Menstruation is not simply a private biological event; it is a workplace health issue that directly affects productivity and participation. Medical studies show that a majority of women experience cramps, fatigue, or hormonal discomfort that impair daily performance. As one policy paper on menstrual equity notes, ignoring these challenges forces women into a culture of presenteeism, where they are physically present but unable to work effectively.
In India, where women’s labour force participation remains among the lowest in the G20, such measures can serve as both acknowledgment and incentive. Granting menstrual leave validates a biological reality and recognises women’s contribution in a workforce historically designed for men. It reduces silent suffering, supports retention in demanding sectors like garments and IT, and signals that gender-sensitive norms can coexist with high-performance workplaces.
Still, the measure should not be oversold. Menstrual leave addresses one aspect of gender disparity; it cannot substitute for broader reforms in maternity benefits, childcare, pay equity, safe transport, or workplace flexibility. It must be seen as a small but symbolic reform within a larger equality architecture.
The stigma risk: progress can backfire
One of the strongest arguments against menstrual leave is that it could unintentionally reinforce the stereotype of women as less dependable workers. In offices where implicit bias already exists, women who avail the leave may find themselves passed over for promotions or seen as liabilities. Feminist scholars have long warned that protective laws can sometimes entrench the very inequalities they aim to fix.
To prevent such backlash, confidentiality is key. The reason for leave must be treated as a private health matter, not shared openly in HR records or management reports. The policy should also integrate menstrual leave within general wellness or health leave frameworks, rather than label it a “women’s leave.” That subtle linguistic and administrative shift helps normalise it.
Equally important is awareness training within organisations. Managers and colleagues must understand that menstrual pain is not a sign of weakness. Studies from Spain, where a similar policy was enacted in 2023, show that acceptance improved markedly when workplaces conducted menstrual health workshops and publicised the legitimacy of such leave.
Finally, policies must recognise intersectionality. Factory workers, informal labourers, and women from poorer backgrounds often lack access to medical documentation or supportive supervisors. Rules must ensure these groups are not penalised for availing a right that wealthier or white-collar employees can claim without consequence.
Preventing misuse by employers, employees
Like any welfare policy, menstrual leave carries risks of misuse. Employers could misuse it to force women to stay home during their periods or subtly discourage their hiring. On the other hand, employees might exploit the provision by claiming leave arbitrarily. Both possibilities can undermine the legitimacy of the reform.
To strike a balance, policymakers must design simple but credible safeguards. A limited number of self-certified leaves — say, up to a fixed annual cap — could be allowed, after which medical attestation may be required. Spain’s law initially required a doctor’s note diagnosing menstrual disorders, which discouraged some from applying. India could avoid that deterrent by allowing flexible, technology-based self-declaration models, such as confidential digital applications verified through occupational health systems.
There is also merit in introducing a periodic policy review. A sunset clause requiring assessment after two or three years can evaluate actual usage, incidence of misuse, and the law’s impact on women’s participation and promotion rates. This iterative approach would allow fine-tuning based on data rather than political rhetoric.
Penalties should exist for both coercion and falsification. Employers who deny legitimate requests or discriminate against women taking leave must face fines; equally, employees found abusing the policy should face proportionate consequences. This mutual accountability preserves the integrity of the idea without inviting cynicism.
Lessons from global models
Menstrual leave is not a novelty. Japan introduced it in 1947, but stigma has kept usage rates below 1 per cent. Indonesia, South Korea, and Taiwan have long-standing provisions, though their impact remains muted. A new wave of European adoption, led by Spain and Portugal, has revived the debate. Portugal’s 2025 law grants three paid days a month to women with diagnosed conditions like endometriosis, with the state covering wages. Spain’s experience offers a telling lesson: despite being hailed as “historic,” only 1,559 women used the leave in the first 11 months. The low uptake was not due to lack of need, but fear of stigma and bureaucratic hurdles.
The global message is clear. Success depends less on the number of leave days and more on legitimacy, awareness, and ease of access. Countries that have framed menstrual leave within broader health policies — linking it to wellness, ergonomic design, and menstrual hygiene support — have fared better. Policymakers in India must therefore focus on institutional culture, not just compliance.
Adapting digital platforms for confidential self-certification, encouraging pilot programmes in high-female-employment sectors like textiles and banking, and mandating gender-sensitivity audits in companies can create trust. The federal government should also consider model guidelines for states, allowing flexibility across industries but ensuring uniform rights.
A calibrated step toward gender parity
Karnataka’s decision to universalise menstrual leave is bold and timely. It follows smaller moves by Bihar, Odisha, and a few progressive private firms such as Larsen & Toubro, which introduced one-day paid leave for women in engineering and construction divisions.
The reform recognises what workplaces have long denied — that gender equality requires accommodating difference, not erasing it. But the policy’s success will hinge on execution. Without careful design and social acceptance, menstrual leave could become another well-intentioned idea undone by stigma, misuse, and bureaucratic inertia.
India must learn from the world: normalise the conversation, legislate with flexibility, monitor outcomes, and fine-tune based on evidence. Menstrual leave should not be viewed as a concession to women, but as a mark of maturity in a labour market striving to treat all workers with dignity. Done right, it can move India one step closer to true workplace parity — not by granting privilege, but by acknowledging reality.