- within Employment and HR topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in Australia
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy, Consumer Industries and Law Firm industries
In a significant move toward workplace inclusivity, the Government of Karnataka, through its Order dated November 12, 2025, has introduced the Menstrual Leave Policy ("Policy"), entitling female employees to one (1) day of paid menstrual leave per month totaling to twelve (12) annual menstrual leaves across all private and public sector establishments in the State of Karnataka.
Before formalizing the Policy, the Government of Karnataka had invited suggestions, objections and opinions from factory owners, labour representatives, workers and the general public seeking their inputs on the proposal to offer paid menstrual leaves to female employees in Karnataka. Most stakeholders supported the proposal, ultimately leading the State Cabinet to approve the Policy.
Applicability and Scope
Although the Order is issued in vernacular, based on the translated version, the Policy is understood to apply as follows:
- It is applicable to women aged eighteen (18) to fifty-two (52) years and covers establishments governed by the Factories Act, 1948, the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961, the Plantations Labour Act, 1951, the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Employment and Conditions) Act, 1966, and the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 in Karnataka;
- It extends to government offices, MNCs, IT/ITES, manufacturing units, garment units, and other industries, and applies to permanent, contract, and outsourced women employees;
- Eligible employees can avail one (1) day of paid menstrual leave per month without producing a medical certificate; and
- The leave cannot be carried forward to the following month and must be utilized within the month it is allotted.
This framework positions Karnataka among the few jurisdictions globally that offer unconditional, full-pay menstrual leaves, without tying the entitlement to medical documentation or salary deductions. From an operational standpoint, organizations may have to review leave policies, payroll systems, and internal procedures to accommodate this entitlement.
Anhad Law's Perspective
Karnataka's move represents a significant step in formally recognising menstrual health as a legitimate workplace concern.
At the national level, the attempts to introduce menstrual leave have not translated into legal reform. In the past, States like Bihar, Odisha and Kerala have introduced the menstrual leave policies in their States, but the said leaves are only applicable to either female government employees or female students studying in state universities.
Compared to other states, Karnataka's approach is more employee-oriented than many jurisdictions offering menstrual leaves. Jurisdictions such as Japan, Indonesia, and South Korea link menstrual leave to pain or medical need, Taiwan permits three (3) days of menstrual leave per year paid at half the wages as part of the broader annual sick leave quota, with any additional menstrual leave allowed but unpaid, and Spain ties entitlement to a doctor's certification with cost borne by the State. By contrast, Karnataka has introduced an unconditional, monthly, full-pay entitlement to employees.
The Order, however, does present a few areas where further clarity and guidance would be beneficial. The legal enforceability of the Order remains uncertain until it is published in the official Gazette.
Another significant gap lies in the absence of privacy standards or safeguards against discrimination or bias in relation to availing the leave.
Further, since the Policy extends to contractual and outsourced women workers as well, principal employers may be responsible for ensuring that contractors provide menstrual leave benefits. This may necessitate revisions to contractual agreements and related documentation. The approach has implications under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, particularly in instances where authorities hold the principal employer accountable for non-compliance by contractors.
Notably, the Order fails to identify any enforcement authority, inspection protocol, reporting mechanisms, or penalties for non-compliance.
Notwithstanding the above, Karnataka's Policy represents a progressive approach in the Indian context. It aligns with evolving international trends and reflects an increasing recognition of employee welfare considerations.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
