Answer

Introduction

In the landmark judgment of Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India (2026), the Supreme Court declared the right to dignified menstrual health an intrinsic part of the Right to Life (Article 21) and the Right to Education (Article 21A). By establishing access to menstrual hygiene management (MHM) as a constitutional imperative, the Court moved the discourse from “optional welfare” to “enforceable entitlement,” addressing the structural exclusion that causes ~23 million girls in India to drop out of school annually.

Body

Effectiveness of Court-Led Enforcement

• Substantive Equality Approach: The Court invoked Article 14 to argue that treating unequals equally perpetuates discrimination, mandating affirmative action like free sanitary products to ensure a level playing field.
  Eg: The judgment directs all states to provide free oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins to girls in Classes 6–12.
• Mandatory Infrastructure Standards: Judicial intervention has elevated MHM measures to mandatory “norms and standards” under Section 19 of the RTE Act, 2009.
  Eg: Directions include gender-segregated toilets with running water, soap, and privacy-focused designs, including for children with disabilities.
• Continuous Monitoring Mechanism: The use of “Continuing Mandamus” ensures that the case is not closed after the verdict, with the Court reviewing compliance every 3 months.
• Establishment of MHM Corners: Schools are now required to maintain “emergency corners” equipped with spare uniforms, innerwear, and disposal bags.
• Institutional Accountability: The Court linked compliance to school accreditation, warning that private schools face derecognition for failure to provide hygiene facilities.
• Sensitization and Curricula: By directing NCERT and SCERTs to incorporate gender-responsive curricula, the Court targets the social stigma and “hushed whispers” surrounding puberty.
  Eg: The judgment emphasizes educating boys and male teachers to prevent the harassment that drives absenteeism.

Challenges in Translating Rights to Outcomes

• Fiscal and Budgetary Gaps: While the Court mandates free products, the financial burden falls on state budgets, where competing priorities often lead to underfunding of sanitation.
• Maintenance and Upkeep: Constructing toilets is a one-time cost, but ensuring functional water supply and daily cleaning in rural schools remains a persistent administrative hurdle.
  Eg: A 2025 study highlighted that while 90% of schools have toilets, only 50% are functional or have regular water supply.
• Environmental Waste Management: The disposal of millions of sanitary napkins per month poses a massive ecological challenge without decentralized, low-emission incinerators.
• Last-Mile Supply Chain: Ensuring the regular availability of pads in remote, hilly, or tribal areas requires a robust logistics network that currently lacks “last-mile” reach.
• Deep-Rooted Cultural Taboos: Judicial orders can change school rules, but they struggle to dismantle intergenerational myths that restrict mobility and diet during periods.
• Bureaucratic Inertia: Dependence on District Education Officers (DEOs) for inspections often leads to “paper compliance” where toilets are cleaned only during scheduled visits.

Conclusion

To bridge the gap between “judicial decree” and “on-ground reality,” the solution lies in Community-Led Monitoring. As suggested, the Court’s direction to conduct anonymous student surveys is a vital first step. However, true success requires a “whole-of-society” approach integrating Panchayati Raj Institutions for maintenance, using Self-Help Groups (SHGs) for local pad production, and ensuring that the “right to bleed with dignity” is protected not just by law, but by local social conscience.

DOWNLOAD PDF