Breaking: Gujarat HC Proposes To Prohibit Social Exclusion Of Women Based On Their Menstrual Status At All Private And Public Places, Including Religious & Educational

The Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Ilesh J. Vora was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in connection with an unfortunate incident wherein, over 60 girls in a hostel of Shree Sahjanand Girls Institute in Bhuj town of Kutch were reportedly forced to strip to "prove" they were not menstruating.

About the incident

It was reported that 68 undergraduate girls were paraded through the college into the restroom and forced to individually remove their undergarments to prove that they were not menstruating.

The incident in question took place after the hostel rector complained to the principal that some of the girls had been violating their religious norms, specifically for menstruating females.

The Plea before the Court

Writ Applicant (Nirjhari Mukul Sinha) moved HC seeking direction for a law to specifically deal with the exclusionary practice against women on the basis of their menstrual status.

It was specifically submitted before the Court that the practice which is being followed and encouraged of exclusion of women on the basis of their menstrual status is violative of human, legal and fundamental rights of women, more particularly, those as enshrined under Articles 14, 15, 17, 19, and 21 respectively of the Constitution.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court observed,

"Menstruation has been stigmatized in our society. This stigma has built up due to the traditional beliefs in impurity of menstruating women and our unwillingness to discuss it normally."

The Court also noted that many girls and women are subjected to restrictions in their daily lives simply because they are menstruating.

"Not entering the "puja" room is the major restriction among the urban girls whereas, not entering the kitchen is the main restriction among the rural girls during menstruation. Menstruating girls and women are also restricted from offering prayers and touching holy books", observed the Court.

Further, the Court also opined that the underlying basis for this myth is also the cultural beliefs of impurity associated with menstruation and that it is believed that menstruating women are unhygienic and unclean and hence the food they prepare or handle can get contaminated.

The Court, in its order, noted that a large number of girls in many less economically developed countries drop out of school when they begin menstruating (over 23% of girls in India).

"Such taboos about menstruation present in many societies impact on girls' and women's emotional state, mentality and lifestyle and most importantly, health", remarked the Court.

In this regard, the Court observed that the young girls often grow up with limited knowledge of menstruation because their mothers and other women shy away from discussing the issues with them and that there is also need to spread awareness among the school teachers regarding menstruation.

The Court also observed that the gender–unfriendly school culture and infrastructure and the lack of adequate menstrual protection alternatives and/or clean, safe and private sanitation facilities for female teachers and girls undermine their right to privacy.

Further, the Court noted,

"88% of women in India sometimes resort to using ashes, newspapers, dried leaves and husk sand to aid absorption. Poor protection and inadequate washing facilities may increases susceptibility to infection, with the odor of menstrual blood putting girls at risk of being stigmatized."

The Court also observed,

"The challenge, of addressing the socio-cultural taboos and beliefs in menstruation, is further compounded by the fact the girls' knowledge levels and understandings of puberty, menstruation, and reproductive health are very low."

Further, the Court 'proposed' to issue the following directions for the State Government to follow;

• Prohibit social exclusion of women on the basis of their menstrual status at all places, be it private or public, religious or educational;
• The State Government should spread awareness among its citizens regarding the social exclusion of women on the basis of their menstrual status through various mediums like putting up posters at public places, including it in the school curriculum, using audiovisual mediums like radio, entertainment/news channels, short films etc;
• Empowerment of women through education and increasing their role in decision-making can also aid in this regard;
• Sensitization of health workers, Accredited Social Health Activists and Anganwadi Workers regarding menstruation biology must also be done so that they can further disseminate this knowledge in the community and mobilize social support against busting menstruation-related myths. Adolescent Friendly Health Services Clinics must also have trained manpower to address these issues;
• The State Government should hold campaigns, drives, involve NGOs and other private organizations to spread such awareness;
• The State Government should include the issue of social exclusion of women on the basis of their menstrual status in all existing campaigns/schemes that aims at menstrual hygiene;
• The State Government should allocate necessary funds for the implementation of the directions;
• The State Government should prohibit all educational institutions, hostels, and living spaces for women-studying working and others, private or public, by whatever name called, from following social exclusion of women on the basis of their menstrual status in any manner;
• The State Government should undertake surprise checks, create an appropriate mechanism and take such other actions, steps as may be necessary to ensure its compliance including the imposition of an appropriate penalty against the erring institution.

Significantly, the Court clarified that the aforesaid is just a prima facie consideration of the issue in question.

However, before issuing appropriate directions, as referred to above, the Court sought the response of the State Government as well as the Union of India.

"We are conscious of the fact that we are dealing with a very delicate issue and, therefore, it is necessary for this Court to hear all the respondents and other stakeholders", concluded the Court.

Thus, the Court directed that notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 30th March, 2021.

Case title - Nirjhari Mukul Sinha v. Union Of India [R/Writ Petition (PIL) No. 38 of 2020]

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order