Karnataka's new menstrual leave policy for 2025 is being hailed as progressive: a day’s paid leave a month for public and private sector workers. In India, where menstruation is still shrouded in discomfort and silence, the objective is to normalise menstruation in a gender-sensitive work environment. The policy aims to acknowledge that periods can involve pain, fatigue, and hygiene issues and create a workplace that doesn’t pretend otherwise. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah called it “a step towards a more humane, understanding, and inclusive workplace”. Karnataka is no pioneer. Bihar implemented its two-day leave policy in 1992. Kerala gives women workers in government ITIs two days’ leave a month.
However, the feel-good language deserves pressure-testing. Other countries introduced menstrual leave long before India. Their experience suggests the road ahead is anything but smooth. Japan wrote menstrual leave into law in 1947. Surveys indicate the uptake is low. Many workers fear it makes them appear weak or can impact their careers. In South Korea, too, surveys show that some employers quietly discourage using it. Women who ask for it are sometimes painted as weak. In the UK and Italy, critics argue it reinforces negative stereotypes.
Women in Karnataka have hailed the move. In principle, it addresses the absenteeism versus presenteeism debate—that employees who are present may not perform to their full potential due to health issues. Many companies already discriminate against women in pay, roles, and responsibilities; this could extend to hiring, as employers might count 12 days of additional leave as a loss of work hours. It could make women seeking menstrual leave appear apologetic about male colleagues taking their workload, even though it is the employers’ responsibility to arrange for lean staff days. The chauvinistic male backlash online in Karnataka shows how quickly the conversation can turn regressive, with men complaining of extra work or that women are becoming a “liability”.
Moreover, the policy speaks to the organised workforce. It does not cover the unorganised section of women who often work through pain with no safety net. And implementation? Who will ensure compliance? What happens when employers quietly penalise women for availing the leave? If Karnataka wants to avoid repeating international mistakes, it must go beyond symbolism. Flexibility, including work-from-home options where possible, and enforceable protections against discrimination are basic requirements.
