The Supreme Court has pulled up states and Union Territories for failing to report how they are implementing its directions on menstrual hygiene in schools, warning that the constitutional right recognised in its January 2026 judgment cannot remain confined to the pages of a court order.
In its latest proceedings in Dr Jaya Thakur v Government of India, the court expressed concern that most states and Union Territories had not responded to the Centre’s requests for information on compliance. It gave the defaulting governments another opportunity to submit detailed affidavits within four weeks and warned that chief secretaries could face contempt notices if they failed to comply.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on December 14, 2026.
The proceedings follow the court’s January 30 judgment, which held that access to menstrual hygiene facilities is integral to the fundamental rights to life with dignity, equality and education. The judgment directed governments to ensure free sanitary products, functional and accessible toilets, safe disposal systems, menstrual health education and regular inspections in schools.
What did the Supreme Court direct?
The January 30 judgment laid down a set of requirements for all government and privately managed schools, in urban and rural areas. The directions apply to schools across the country and are intended to make menstrual hygiene a part of the conditions necessary for children to access education.
The court’s directions cover four broad areas.
1. Free sanitary napkins and menstrual hygiene corners
States and Union Territories must ensure that girls have access to sanitary napkins free of cost. The court directed schools to make the products readily accessible, preferably through vending machines inside toilet premises or through a designated place or staff member.
Schools must also establish menstrual hygiene management corners with materials such as spare innerwear, uniforms and disposable bags to help students manage unexpected periods or other menstruation-related needs. Schools must also have a system through which a student can obtain a pad when she needs one, without embarrassment, unnecessary questioning or having to leave the premises.
2. Functional toilets, water and privacy
The court directed schools to provide separate toilets for girls and boys, with usable water connections, handwashing facilities, soap and water.
Toilets must be designed and maintained to protect privacy and remain accessible to children with disabilities. The judgment also addressed the need for regular cleaning and maintenance.
A toilet recorded as available in official data does not necessarily mean that a student can use it when required. A locked facility, a broken water connection, an unusable door or the absence of cleaning arrangements can make the infrastructure ineffective.
3. Safe disposal of menstrual waste
Schools must provide safe and environmentally compliant systems for disposing of sanitary waste, including covered bins in toilet units and arrangements for regular cleaning and maintenance.
The court also revisited the material used to manufacture sanitary napkins. In its September 1 order, it modified its earlier direction on oxo-biodegradable products, directing governments to move towards sanitary napkins that are biodegradable, biocompatible and compostable and comply with the specified standards.
This adds an environmental dimension to the implementation challenge. Providing sanitary products is only one part of menstrual hygiene management; schools also need a safe way to collect and dispose of used products.
4. Menstrual health education and teacher training
The court directed the National Council of Educational Research and Training and State Councils of Educational Research and Training to incorporate gender-responsive material on menstruation, puberty and related health concerns into the curriculum.
Teachers, irrespective of gender, must be trained to support students experiencing menstruation. The court also stressed that boys and male teachers have a role in creating an environment in which menstruation is treated as a biological reality rather than a source of shame.
A student should be able to ask to use the toilet or seek help during an unexpected period without facing ridicule or intrusive questioning. The judgment makes clear that infrastructure alone cannot address the problem if the school environment remains hostile or stigmatising.
Why has the court questioned the compliance reports?
The September 1 order is central to understanding the court’s latest concerns.
After examining information submitted by the Union government on behalf of states and Union Territories, the court said there had been progress but that significant work remained. It questioned whether some of the reported figures accurately reflected conditions in schools.
The Union’s affidavit had reported progress in the construction and functioning of girls’ toilets. Of 39,439 toilets identified as needing attention in the UDISE+ 2024–25 data, states reported that 30,458 had been constructed, 4,236 were under construction and 4,745 remained outstanding.
The court nevertheless found discrepancies in the figures submitted by some governments. It questioned how certain states and Union Territories could report full coverage when the number of schools with particular facilities did not match the total number of schools.
Tamil Nadu was among the states specifically flagged. Although it had reported full coverage of gender-segregated toilets, the court questioned the claim because the number of schools with such facilities was substantially lower than the total number of schools.
The court also raised questions about reports of sanitary napkin availability and vending machines. In some states, the number of schools reporting vending machines or the provision of sanitary napkins was lower than the total number of schools, despite claims of full coverage.
The September order noted that states must distinguish between the existence of a policy and whether it reaches students in practice.
The court was also concerned about the availability of cleaning staff. Some state responses indicated that schools were managing toilet maintenance through internal arrangements, while others had not provided adequate information about the staff responsible for keeping facilities functional.
These discrepancies matter because a state-wide percentage can obscure the conditions in individual schools. A government may report that sanitary products are distributed through a programme, for example, without establishing whether every school has supplies available when students need them.
What do the national school data show?
The Unified District Information System for Education Plus (UDISE+), the Education Ministry’s school data system, provides an important picture of the infrastructure gap.
According to data for 2024–25 cited by NITI Aayog, 94 per cent of schools reported having functional girls’ toilets. While this indicates substantial coverage, it also means that a significant number of schools still lacked such facilities.
NITI Aayog’s analysis identified 98,592 schools without functional girls’ toilets and 61,540 schools without usable toilets. These figures highlight the difference between the overall expansion of school infrastructure and ensuring that facilities remain usable.
The data should not, however, be read as a direct measure of menstrual hygiene readiness. A functional girls’ toilet is one essential requirement, but it does not establish whether the school provides free sanitary napkins, maintains handwashing facilities, offers privacy, has covered bins and safe disposal arrangements, or trains teachers to support students.
The court has also questioned how governments verify the information submitted by schools. Its September order called for district-level inspections and anonymous feedback from students, recognising that administrative records may not fully capture the problems girls experience on the ground.
What happens when schools lack these facilities?
Menstrual hygiene affects more than a student’s immediate comfort. When girls cannot access sanitary products, water, clean toilets or privacy, they may struggle to manage their periods during the school day.
Some may leave school early, miss classes or stay home during menstruation. Repeated absence can disrupt learning and participation, particularly when students are already dealing with barriers to attendance.
The Supreme Court’s January judgment linked these barriers to the right to education under Article 21A and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The court reasoned that education must be provided in conditions consistent with dignity and equality, and that the cost or lack of basic facilities should not prevent children from attending school.
The court called for menstrual health awareness to extend beyond girls to boys, teachers and parents. It emphasised that menstrual health must be treated as a shared responsibility rather than an issue that girls are expected to manage alone.
What will the court expect from states now?
In its October proceedings, the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of responses from states and Union Territories to the Centre’s requests for compliance information.
The court directed the Union government to seek written information from each state and Union Territory on the steps taken to implement the January judgment. It also asked the Centre to prepare a questionnaire covering the different requirements, rather than relying on broad or incomplete statements of compliance.
The warning over possible contempt proceedings raises the stakes for governments that have not responded. The next hearing, scheduled for December 14, will allow the court to examine whether the required information has been submitted and whether the identified gaps are being addressed.
The September order also called for district education officers to form teams of teachers to conduct surprise inspections across schools. The inspections are intended to examine the availability and condition of toilets, water and washing facilities, sanitary products, waste-disposal systems and menstrual health awareness measures.
The court directed that future reports should focus on deficiencies, their causes and the time needed to address them, rather than simply listing facilities already provided. Student feedback is also expected to inform the inspections.
