Systemic Policy Gaps Put Menstrual Hygiene Beyond NHRC’s Reach; Policy Matter, Not Individual Violation: Why NHRC Closed the Menstrual Hygiene Case; Serious Rights Concern, No Directions: NHRC on School Menstrual Facilities; When Systemic Neglect Meets Jurisdictional Limits in Human Rights Review; ‘Menstrual Blood’ Remains, Institutional Doors Closed.
Abstract
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)’s decision in Case No. 1672/1/0/2025 highlights a recurring institutional dilemma in Indian human rights adjudication: the treatment of systemic policy failures as matters lying outside statutory jurisdiction. While the Commission acknowledged the seriousness of inadequate menstrual hygiene facilities in government schools, it declined to intervene on the ground that the issue fell within the administrative domain of State authorities. This article undertakes a constructive analysis of the decision, situating it within constitutional jurisprudence, institutional design, and comparative human rights practice, while identifying pathways for strengthening the protection of collective and gender-based rights in India.
Factual Matrix and Context
The complaint examined by the NHRC arose from documented findings on menstrual hygiene infrastructure in government schools in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Drawing upon reports from a News item and a study by Child Rights and You (CRY), the complaint highlighted persistent infrastructural deficiencies affecting adolescent girls.
Key findings included:
- Only 108 of 370 girls’ toilets were functional;
- Widespread absence of running water, privacy mechanisms, and safe waste disposal;
- Availability of sanitary pads in merely 43 schools;
- Lack of menstrual health awareness among more than half of the surveyed students, leading to stigma and school absenteeism.
These conditions were argued to infringe Articles 14, 15, 21, and 21A of the Indian Constitution, engaging the rights to equality, dignity, health, and education.
NHRC’s Reasoning: Recognition Without Remedial Direction
In its Order dated 22 October 2025, the NHRC acknowledged that the allegations raised serious concerns regarding the dignity and well-being of adolescent girls. The Commission observed that inadequate sanitation and menstrual hygiene facilities could adversely impact access to education and the enjoyment of fundamental rights.
Nevertheless, the proceedings were closed on the reasoning that the issues involved were systemic policy matters, better addressed by State authorities through administrative and legislative measures, rather than through the Commission’s adjudicatory processes under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
Understanding the NHRC’s Jurisdictional Approach
The decision reflects a cautious and restrained interpretation of the NHRC’s mandate, drawing a distinction between:
- Discrete violations attributable to identifiable actors, and
- Structural deficiencies arising from policy design or implementation gaps.
While such restraint may stem from concerns about institutional overreach, it also highlights a structural limitation in India’s human rights architecture, where collective harms—particularly those affecting women and children—often manifest through prolonged administrative neglect rather than isolated acts.
LEGAL POSITION:
This pathetic situation constitutes a gross violation of multiple fundamental rights:
1. Right to Life with Dignity – Article 21 of the Constitution of India
The Supreme Court in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981 AIR 746) held that “right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it.” Denial of menstrual hygiene facilities is a denial of dignity.
2. Right to Education – Article 21A
The right to education is meaningless if adolescent girls are forced to miss school due to lack of menstrual support. In Environmental & Consumer Protection Foundation v. Union of India (2012), the Court mandated proper sanitation facilities in schools as an essential element of theright to education.
3. Right to Health
The Supreme Court in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996 AIR 2426) emphasized the duty of the State to provide adequate medical facilities. Menstrualhygiene is a crucial part of reproductive health.
Constitutional Jurisprudence and the Scope of Human Rights Protection
Indian constitutional jurisprudence has consistently expanded the scope of Article 21 to include rights to health, sanitation, and dignity, particularly for vulnerable groups. Judicial precedents have recognized that inadequate sanitation and unsafe educational environments undermine both the right to life with dignity and the right to education under Article 21A.
From this perspective, the conditions described in the complaint are not merely administrative shortcomings but raise questions about minimum core obligations of the State in ensuring gender-sensitive educational infrastructure.
The NHRC’s acknowledgment of the gravity of the issue—despite declining intervention—implicitly reinforces this constitutional understanding, offering a valuable reference point for future litigation and policy reform.
Comparative and International Human Rights Perspectives
Internationally, menstrual hygiene has increasingly been recognized as a human rights issue, closely linked to gender equality, health, and education. United Nations human rights bodies have emphasized States’ obligations to ensure access to water, sanitation, and menstrual health facilities in schools as part of the right to education and non-discrimination.
National human rights institutions in several jurisdictions have adopted monitoring, advisory, and reporting roles in addressing systemic gender-related deprivations, even where direct enforcement powers are limited. Against this backdrop, the present case invites reflection on whether the NHRC’s advisory and recommendatory functions could be more actively employed in cases involving widespread and recurring rights deficits.
Constructive Pathways for Institutional Engagement
Rather than viewing policy-related issues as entirely beyond its remit, the NHRC could, within its existing framework:
- Issue advisory observations or thematic reports highlighting systemic concerns;
- Recommend periodic compliance reviews by State authorities;
- Facilitate inter-departmental coordination by placing rights-based perspectives before governments; and
- Use its research and awareness functions to bridge gaps between constitutional guarantees and administrative practice.
Such approaches would preserve institutional boundaries while enhancing the Commission’s role as a catalyst for rights-sensitive governance.
Transparency, Legal Reporting, and Democratic Accountability
The publication of decisions involving jurisdictional closure is essential to a transparent legal ecosystem. By documenting not only interventions but also institutional limitations, legal reporting platforms contribute to informed debate on the evolution of human rights protection.
For scholars and practitioners, this case offers insight into how statutory bodies navigate the tension between legal mandate and social realities—particularly in relation to gender justice and public health.
Implications for Law and Policy Reform
The central question raised by this case is not whether policy matters fall within the NHRC’s jurisdiction, but whether systemic rights deprivations can be effectively addressed without institutional engagement from human rights bodies.
The decision thus invites consideration of:
- Legislative clarification or expansion of the NHRC’s role in addressing collective harms;
- Stronger integration of human rights standards into education and public health policy; and
- Enhanced coordination between courts, commissions, and civil society in addressing structural inequality.
Conclusion
NHRC Case No. 1672/1/0/2025 represents a significant moment for reflection within India’s human rights framework. While the Commission rightly exercised jurisdictional caution, its acknowledgment of the serious constitutional implications of inadequate menstrual hygiene infrastructure underscores the need for more robust, systemic responses to collective rights challenges.
By engaging constructively with such cases—through publication, analysis, and institutional reflection—legal platforms and policymakers alike can contribute to strengthening the alignment between constitutional values and lived realities, ensuring that dignity, equality, and education remain substantive, not symbolic, guarantees.
***
DICLAIMER: The views are exclusive personal and constructive in nature.
Author Bio
