Supreme Court warns states of contempt over menstrual hygiene in schools

The Supreme Court of India has given states and Union Territories "one last opportunity" to report how they are carrying out its January ruling on menstrual hygiene in schools, and has warned that their Chief Secretaries will face contempt notices if they stay silent. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan passed the order on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, after Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati told the court that the Union government had written to every state and Union Territory asking for compliance details but had received no reply. The court asked the Union to prepare a questionnaire so that each state and Union Territory answers in a uniform way, and listed the case for its next hearing on Monday, December 14, 2026.

For millions of girls, a period is still a reason to miss school. Without a working toilet, a lock on the door, water to wash, a place to throw away a used pad or a spare set of clothes after a leak, many girls simply stay at home for a few days each month. Those missed days add up across a school year, and they fall hardest on girls from poorer homes who cannot easily buy sanitary products. The court itself pointed to dropout and absenteeism among girls when it issued its January directions.

The January judgment was significant because it moved menstrual health out of the category of welfare schemes and into the language of fundamental rights. Once a need is treated as part of Article 21, the state cannot treat it as optional. The court also kept the case open as a "continuing mandamus", a legal tool that lets judges keep checking whether their orders are actually being followed, rather than closing the file once a ruling is delivered.

The October 13 order shows why that tool was needed. Nine months after the ruling, the Union government told the court that its letters to the states had gone unanswered. In an earlier order on September 1, the court had already criticised some state replies as a mere formality, saying that some states had offered only statistics or yes-or-no answers instead of real detail on what was happening in schools. A standard questionnaire is meant to end that problem by asking every state the same questions in the same format.

The threat of contempt is a serious step. A contempt notice to a Chief Secretary, the top civil servant of a state, puts personal responsibility on the officer who heads the administration. Courts usually reach for it only after repeated delays.

Short-term: State education departments now have a firm deadline. Before December 14, they are expected to collect school-level data, answer the Union's questionnaire and show what has actually been delivered: how many schools have separate toilets that work, how many supply free pads, and how waste is handled.

Long-term: If the court keeps up its monitoring, schools could see sustained funding and attention for basic facilities that have often been neglected. Regular reporting would also give parents, teachers and local officials a clearer picture of which districts are falling behind, and make it harder for the issue to slip off the agenda.

Who is affected: Schoolgirls in Classes 6 to 12 and their families; school heads and teachers who must run the facilities; state education and health departments; and Chief Secretaries, who now carry personal responsibility for replying to the court.

Questions and Answers