Overview
- After briefly staying the policy on December 9, the High Court withdrew the stay the same day and listed the batch of petitions for detailed hearing on January 20, 2026.
- The state filed written objections asserting authority under Article 162 and citing Articles 15(3) and 42, expert committee advice, and international precedents to justify one paid day of menstrual leave each month.
- Petitioners including the Bangalore Hotels’ Association and Avirata AFL Connectivity Systems argue the notification lacks statutory backing, bypassed stakeholder consultation, and introduces a new leave category without legislative amendment.
- The single-judge bench termed the case a matter of public importance and declined to halt the notification further, with the Advocate General indicating the state intends to continue implementation pending hearings.
- The November 20 order covers women aged 18–52 in establishments under five labour laws, extends to permanent, contract and outsourced staff, requires use within the month, and does not require a medical certificate; officials also said the government is preparing a bill to codify the policy and add safeguards.