Karnataka High Court recalls stay on one-day monthly menstrual leave

The Karnataka High Court will hear the state and petitioners on interim relief in challenge to Karnataka's one-day paid menstrual leave notification, after it first stayed and then recalled the stay

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday said it would hear the state government and other parties on Wednesday on the issue of interim relief in the challenge to the state’s menstrual leave order, hours after it had stayed the implementation of the paid leave directive. Earlier in the day, the court had put on hold the government’s November 20 notification, which mandated all industrial establishments provide one day of paid menstrual leave each month to women employees, including those engaged on contract or through outsourcing.

 

Why did the Karnataka High Court revisit its interim stay?

 

Following the stay, Advocate General (AG) Shashi Kiran Shetty mentioned the matter before the bench, contending that the interim order conflicted with a Supreme Court judgment. He sought time to make submissions personally on Wednesday.

 

 

What did the bench record after hearing both sides?

 

The bench then noted the appearance of both sides — petitioner’s counsel Prashant B K and Advocate General Shetty — and directed the government advocate to accept notice. The order recorded that while the petitioner sought an urgent hearing on interim relief, the AG requested time, and the matter was listed for the next day.

 

Who has challenged the November 20 menstrual leave notification?

 

The petitions against the state government's November 20 notification have been filed by the Bangalore Hotels Association and Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems, and oppose the state’s decision to make menstrual leave mandatory for women workers across industrial establishments. Earlier in the day, counsel for the petitioners contended that the government had acted beyond its powers by issuing an executive directive mandating menstrual leave, despite existing labour laws already prescribing detailed leave provisions.

 

What grounds have petitioners cited against the notification?

 

The plea also urged the court to strike down the notification as unconstitutional and beyond the state government’s authority under Article 14 of the Constitution.

 

“None of the statutes under which industries operate contains any clause providing for menstrual leave,” the counsel argued. The petitioners alleged that the government notification was issued without inviting objections from stakeholders, violating the principles of natural justice, and that mandatory menstrual leave could impose an additional financial burden on employers.