The Supreme Court has expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which States and Union Territories reported compliance with its directions on ensuring menstrual hygiene facilities in schools, observing that some responses appeared to be mere formalities and did not reflect the situation on the ground. A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, while monitoring compliance with its judgment in Jaya Thakur v. Government of India & Ors. (2026), perused the affidavit filed by the Union of India and noted that although substantial progress has been made, much more remains to be done to make the right to menstrual health meaningful.
The bench had previously directed the pan-India implementation of the Union’s national policy, ‘Menstrual Hygiene Policy for School-going Girls’, in schools for adolescent girl children from Classes 6 to 12. The directions include ensuring functional gender-segregated toilets with usable water connectivity in all schools, government or private, urban or rural; designing and maintaining toilets to ensure privacy and accessibility, including for children with disabilities; equipping all school toilets with functional washing facilities and soap and water at all times; providing oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins manufactured in compliance with ASTM D-6954 standards free of cost, readily accessible through vending machines or designated places; and establishing menstrual hygiene management corners equipped with spare innerwear, uniforms, disposable pads, and other necessary materials to address menstrual urgency.
During the hearing on September 1, 2026, the bench examined the compliance reports submitted by the States, Union Territories, and the Union of India. According to the Union’s affidavit, out of 39,439 girls’ toilets identified as remaining to be made functional, 30,458 had been constructed, 4,236 were under construction, and 4,745 remained as a gap. The Union also reported substantial expansion of handwashing facilities, sanitary napkin distribution, menstrual hygiene management corners, vending machines, and waste-disposal mechanisms. Several States and Union Territories were shown to have reported complete or near-complete coverage of various facilities.
However, the Court stated that merely reporting numerical figures was insufficient, expressing discontent with the manner in which compliance was reported. It observed that some State responses exhibited non-application of mind or rather mere formality. The bench remarked, ‘we are constrained to say that we are discontent with the manner in which compliance is reported. The response by some States exhibit non-application of mind or rather mere formality. For instance, where the response shall be subjective, some States have indicated compliance through mere statistics or objective yes/no responses.’
The Court cited specific instances of discrepancies. It noted that several States claimed saturation of toilets despite the number of toilets accessible to children with special needs being lower than the total number of schools. Assam’s handwashing figures did not correspond with its total number of schools, while Tamil Nadu claimed saturation despite having far fewer schools with gender-segregated toilets than its total school strength. The Court similarly questioned claims of full coverage of sanitary-napkin vending machines and provision in Karnataka, Jammu & Kashmir, Odisha, and Arunachal Pradesh, where the reported numbers were lower than the total number of schools. Discrepancies were also found in disposal-system data submitted by Bihar, Gujarat, Delhi, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. The Punjab report was found to be illegible.
The bench emphasized that States and Union Territories must not be lethargic in implementing changes meant for children with special needs and urged authorities to be more vigilant towards such children, who face barriers beyond ordinary challenges of schooling. It directed the Union and all States to ensure that compliance reports reflect genuine ground-level implementation rather than statistical formalities.
The Court reiterated that the right to menstrual health is an integral part of the right to health and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution and stressed that meaningful compliance requires more than paper compliance. It affirmed its continued monitoring of the matter and indicated that further directions may be issued based on the quality of future reports.