Aniket is a second-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Patiala. His research focuses on constitutional and criminal law, with work on  LGBTQ+ rights, and criminal law reform. He is a first-generation lawyer and volunteers with the IDIA Punjab Chapter

Costless Rights, Stereotyped Reasoning: Menstrual Leave After Tripathi In January 2026, the Supreme Court recognised menstrual dignity under Article 21 as an infrastructural and state-borne obligation in schools in Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India. However, in Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development and Others, the Court, for the third time in a series of petitions, declined to extend menstrual leave to the workplace, primarily citing concerns that compulsory paid leave could increase the cost of employing women and consequently discourage employers from hiring them. This paper argues that such reasoning is inconsistent with the Court’s own anti-stereotyping jurisprudence in Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008), particularly where a costless, non-discretionary protection is concerned. Although unpaid leave may exist as a formal entitlement, its lack of effective enforcement leaves women, especially those working in informal sectors, without meaningful protection. Drawing on Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), where the Court issued binding guidelines in the absence of legislation, this paper proposes a two-tier approach: judicial intervention to address the retaliation gap and legislative reform to address the broader equity gap. It argues that menstrual dignity can be protected without imposing a financial burden on employers, while ensuring that women are not disadvantaged through discriminatory workplace practices