“We wish to communicate to every girl child who might have become a victim of absenteeism because her body was perceived as a burden, that the fault is not hers.” With these words, on 30 January 2026, a bench of the Supreme Court of India (‘the Court’) concluded its judgement in Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India & Ors., recognising menstrual health as part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This marks a monumental shift from viewing menstrual health as an individual matter to defining it as a “shared responsibility”. While the judgment’s directions to mandate menstrual products and infrastructural improvements has received much attention, we argue that its groundbreaking nature lies in its articulation of menstrual health as menstrual literacy and bodily autonomy.

Despite expansively framing menstrual health as a step towards attaining social justice, the judgment vacillates between a narrow focus on menstrual hygiene management (‘MHM’) and a broader recognition of barriers rooted in stigma, stereotypes, and patriarchal power structures. The Court situates its reasoning within the framework of substantive equality, emphasising that rights can be truly realised only when an individual’s social positioning is meaningfully considered, accounting for structural disadvantages shaped by religion, race, caste, sex, gender, and other identity markers. The judgment identifies multiple menstrual health barriers that hinder holistic participation in education, including dysmenorrhea, menstrual illiteracy, lack of sanitation facilities, and restrictive social norms.

The Court also acknowledges that many menstruators face compounded disadvantages. While the court considers important axes such as disability and socio-economic status, its intersectional analysis remains limited. The judgement draws extensively on previous case law addressing discrimination based on caste and gender identity but fails to address the realities of trans, non-binary, and Dalit menstruators. For instance, trans and non-binary menstruators face challenges from mis-gendered health care services, lack of social support, and difficulties in accessing public infrastructure, while Dalit menstruators experience menstrual stigma intertwined with caste-based discrimination and oppression. Additionally, the Court’s direction to establish menstrual waste disposal in schools, including the appointment of cleaning staff, deserves praise. However, the judgment does not consider that this labour is likely to fall disproportionately on Dalit sanitation workers. Despite the prohibition of manual scavenging, entrenched caste hierarchies continue to assign sanitation labour to specific Dalit sub-castes, reproducing caste-based discrimination.

The “lack of body literacy contributes to a feeling of lack of bodily autonomy,” the judgement observes, foregrounding decisional autonomy to make choices free from “societal demands of homogeneity”. Though this understanding is quite far-reaching, the judgement falls into the familiar trap of presenting MHM as a silver-bullet solution to these complex structural challenges. An exclusive focus on material interventions risks reinforcing the notion that menstruation is a private matter and that menstruators must hide, manage and control their bodily fluids to ‘achieve dignity’.

While the bulk of the judgment focuses on MHM, it also (timidly) gestures toward a more transformative vision. Its directions stress menstrual health awareness, developing gender-responsive curricula, and sensitising teachers. The Court argues that men and boys have a critical role to play in dismantling menstrual stigma, highlighting menstrual health as a collective responsibility. Rather than sanitising women’s bodies, the court explicitly calls for sterilising the whole ecosystem of menstrual stigma, admitting that infrastructural efforts would remain underutilised in its absence.

At a time when sexual and reproductive health rights are under pressure across the world, menstrual health provides an entry point for bodily autonomy. To date, however, policy and advocacy efforts, particularly in India, have largely propagated a bloodless, sanitised understanding of menstruation focused on hygiene, while overlooking its broader health and justice implications. This is where the judgment breaks new ground, by emphasising autonomy in exercising menstrual care, free from coercive practices and social restrictions.

Much of the commentary to date has applauded the Court for mandating the provision of menstrual products in schools and strengthening infrastructural support. We argue, however, that the judgment’s true transformative potential lies in its less publicised statements on menstrual health as menstrual literacy and bodily autonomy. If implemented with this broader vision in mind, the judgment will help re-envisage menstrual education and health beyond its current limitations, ensuring that it “travels beyond courtrooms and law review reports to reach the everyday conscience of society at large”.