MENSTRUAL LEAVE: A TOOL FOR GENDER JUSTICE OR A BARRIER TO WOMEN'S EMPLOYMENT? – AN HR DILEMMA

Abstract: Abstract Menstrual leave has moved in a single year from a scattered welfare practice into a contested constitutional question in India. Karnataka's 2025 policy, upheld by its High Court in April 2026, sits alongside a Supreme Court that in March 2026 declined to mandate a national scheme, warning explicitly that a compulsory, gender-specific entitlement could make employers reluctant to hire women at all. This article examines whether menstrual leave, as an instrument of human resource policy, advances gender justice or instead functions as a hidden barrier to women's employment. Drawing on statistical-discrimination theory, comparative evidence from Japan, Spain, Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea and Zambia, and the closely analogous domestic experience of the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, the article argues that the employment effect of menstrual leave is not fixed by the fact of mandation but by its design. A rigid, women-only, medically-certified entitlement recreates the very cost signal that depressed female hiring after the 2017 maternity amendment; a flexible, gender-neutral, self-certified entitlement embedded in a wider wellness architecture need not. The article closes with a set of design and implementation recommendations for HR practitioners operating in a fragmented, rapidly evolving regulatory environment. Keywords: Menstrual leave, Gender justice, Women's employment, Human resource policy, Employment law, Labour market discrimination