The Supreme Court has expressed displeasure over States and Union Territories not responding to the Centre on how its judgment declaring menstrual hygiene as a part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution is being implemented.

“If what we have said in the judgment is only going to remain on paper, how are the Union and states/UTs going to give effect to this fundamental right?” said Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.

Editorial | A full stop: On the top court, the right to menstrual health and hygiene

It said the apex court had declared menstrual hygiene/menstrual health as one of the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution, which deals with the protection of life and personal liberty.

The Bench said that on September 1, it had directed the States and UTs to take into consideration the deficiencies highlighted by it and report in that regard by the next date of hearing.

In a significant judgment delivered on January 30, the apex court said that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to menstrual health.

During the hearing in the matter on October 13, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, told the Bench that the Union of India has taken up this issue very seriously with all the states and UTs to respond to what manner the judgment is being implemented.

“Unfortunately, the states/UTs have not responded to the Union so far. We fail to understand that once the Union calls for the necessary information, why do the states/UTs not respond?” the Bench said.

Also read: Menstrual health is a public health issue

“We are sure that the Union, the states/UTs have realised the importance of the judgment that we delivered, declaring menstrual hygiene as a part of the fundamental right,” it said.

The Bench said the apex court’s verdict was in the interest of young girls who were giving up education, more particularly in remote parts of the country because of the problem of menstrual hygiene, etc.

“We direct the Union to take up this issue very seriously with each state/UT and call for the necessary information in writing as to what steps they have taken so far for giving effect to the judgment delivered by this court,” it said.

The Bench said the Centre should study the verdict once again and accordingly call for information on each and every aspect of the matter.

“On the next date of hearing, if we hear from the Union that some of the states/UTs have not responded, we shall proceed to issue a contempt notice to the concerned chief secretary,” the Bench said.

While granting one last opportunity to do the needful, it posted the matter for the next hearing on December 14.

In its September 1 order, the bench had said the focus should be on the number of schools that lack gender-segregated, functional toilets with usable water connectivity, ensuring accessibility and privacy.

The Centre had then informed the top court that 30,458 gender-segregated toilets with washing facilities had been constructed in schools across the country, while 4,236 were under construction.

In its judgment delivered in January, the apex court had directed the states and UTs to ensure that every school, whether government-run or privately managed, in both urban and rural areas, was provided with functional, gender-segregated toilets with usable water connectivity.

The top court had also directed the states and UTs to ensure that every school provides sanitary napkins to girl students free of cost.

The judgment was delivered on a plea seeking pan-India implementation of the Centre’s ‘menstrual hygiene policy for schoolgoing girls’ in government and government-aided schools from classes 6 to 12.