Dr. Jaya Thakur v Government of India 2026 INSC 97 | 2026 SCO.LR (2)[1][4] SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Judgement Date: 30 January 2026

In the case of Jaya Thakur vs Union of India, the apex court reiterated menstrual health as integral to life with dignity following the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, imposing positive duty on the state. This landmark maintains the judiciary’s role in enforcing substantive equality, making menstruation a justifiable right rather than a societal taboo. A Public Interest Litigation was filed by Dr. Jaya Thakur under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution for the matter of increased number of teenage girl absentees (23% of school absenteeism according to the data of NFHS-5) and drop outs. The court observed that the main cause of this was those girls were not able to afford the sanitary products, there were no gender segregated washroom facility available at school. In addition to this there was a lack of disposal facilities to dispose of the menstrual waste and this haunted the girls because of the shame. Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM) is defined by the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation as, (i) Articulation, awareness, information, and confidence to manage menstruation safely and with dignity using safe, hygienic materials with (ii) adequate water, soap, and private spaces for washing and bathing and (iii) dignified disposal of used menstrual absorbents with privacy. The World Health Organization (2012) further elaborates: MHM requires clean menstrual materials (changeable in privacy), access to soap and water for body hygiene, safe/convenient disposal facilities, and understanding of menstrual cycles. Lack of adequate facilities created a barrier for the teenager girls to attend the school and this increases the number of teenager girl absentees as well as drop outs. According to the Article 14 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees not only formal equality but also substantive equality. This provision has been breached where state was unable to provide reasonable accommodation of biological realities. In addition to this Article 21(Dignity) and Article 21A(Education) was also breached where dignified menstrual health, comprising access to clean absorbents, adequate sanitation, and safe disposal, constitutes a fundamental aspect of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984),9 the Court held that the right to live with dignity draws content from the Directive Principles, including access to health and education. Menstrual health, therefore, falls squarely within the protective ambit of Article 21. In consequence of the violation of Article 21 also violates the Article 21A where lack of proper menstruation facilities created a barrier foe access in education. The petitioner appealed in the court for the school students only. If we talk about Article 14 and 21 of the Indian constitution it guarantees equality and dignity to everyone not merely students. Providing adequate menstrual related facilities is also the right of working women who works in offices and courts. There are also some instances where women denied a decent job because of the barriers like adequate and convenient clean washroom facilities, availability of sanitary pad vending machines and vanishing of the menstrual taboo from the workplace as well. Article 21 also includes “right to work” with “right to life” as well. The Supreme Court has recognized that the right to livelihood is an integral facet of Article 21, particularly in cases such as Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985). However, there is no independent fundamental "right to work" under Article 21. The "right to work" primarily appears in Directive Principles (Article 41).