Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court strongly criticized the Madhya Pradesh High Court for disregarding the mental and physical health challenges faced by a woman judicial officer due to a miscarriage while assessing her performance. A bench led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna highlighted gender-based biases in performance evaluations and questioned the absence of similar standards for male judges. This was in a suo moto case involving the termination of two female judicial officers. 

What was the Background of Aditi Kumar Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. Case? 

• Six judicial officers from the Madhya Pradesh High Court were simultaneously terminated from service.  
• Two female judicial officers remained terminated after four others were reinstated by the High Court.  
• The specific case focuses on one female judicial officer's performance assessment.  
• Performance Metrics: 
  • Disposed of only two civil suits in one year. 
  • Earned just 1.36 performance units. 
  • Maintained below-average disposal rate during COVID-19 period. 
  • Personal Challenges Impacting Performance: 
    • Suffered a miscarriage. 
    • Contracted COVID-19. 
    • Had a brother diagnosed with cancer. 
• Professional Documentation: 
  • Previous Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) contained good and very good remarks. 
  • An inspection judge from Ratlam provided "average" remarks post-termination.  
  • Complaints against her were not conclusively resolved before termination. 
  • The judicial officer challenged her termination, bringing the case to the Supreme Court's attention.  
  • The case states potential gender-based disparities in judicial performance evaluations and the need to consider personal hardships in professional assessments. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court bench, led by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and NK Singh, critically examined the Madhya Pradesh High Court's performance assessment criteria for judicial officers.  
• The bench strongly criticized the evaluation method that failed to consider personal medical and mental health challenges, particularly those specific to female judicial officers.  
• On this, Justice Nagarathna remarked: "I hope such criteria is also imposed on male judges. I have no hesitation in saying this.” 
  • The lady got pregnant, and she had a miscarriage! The mental and physical ailment of a lady who has undergone a miscarriage. 
  • What is this? I wish men have menstruation.  
  • Then they will know what it is. We are sorry.  
  • This is a High Court dealing with a woman judicial officer. Black and white she has written here that due to miscarriage. Have the same kind of criteria for the male judges! 
• Justice Nagarathna explicitly challenged the gender-biased performance metrics, questioning whether such stringent criteria would be equally applied to male judges 
• The Court observed the need to accommodate personal circumstances like miscarriage, COVID-19 infection, and family health crises in professional performance evaluations.  

What are the Supreme Court's Views on Mandating Menstrual Leave in Workplaces? 

• The Supreme Court, led by the then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud states the complex nuances of implementing a menstrual leave policy, recognizing two contrasting perspectives on such workplace provisions. 
• The bench cautioned that mandating menstrual leave could potentially disadvantage women by making employers reluctant to hire female staff, thereby potentially creating unintended negative consequences for women's employment opportunities 
• The Court State that menstrual leave is fundamentally a policy issue best addressed by policymakers at government and organizational levels, rather than through judicial intervention 
• The three-judge bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, disposed of the petition urging mandatory menstrual leave, noting that the petitioner had previously been advised to submit representations to relevant governmental authorities.  
• While acknowledging the importance of the issue, the Court maintained that policy formulation requires careful consideration of potential impacts on women's workforce participation and should be left to appropriate governmental bodies. 

What are the Legislative Measures Being Taken Regarding Menstrual Leaves? 

• Parliament has seen attempts to introduce menstrual leave and menstrual health products bills, but they have not been successful so far. 
• Example: The Menstruation Benefits Bill, 2017’ and Women’s Sexual, Reproductive and Menstrual Rights Bill in 2018. 

The Right of Women to Menstrual Leave and Free Access to Menstrual Health Products Bill, 2022 

• The bill proposes a comprehensive framework to provide three days of paid menstrual leave for working women and female students, along with free access to menstrual health products across all establishments and educational institutions 
• The bill aims to address critical issues surrounding menstrual health, including the fact that approximately 40% of girls miss school during their periods due to various challenges like lack of privacy, discomfort, and social stigma 
• A proposed Female Menstrual Health Products Price Regulating Authority would be established to ensure free distribution of menstrual products, regulate prices, create awareness, and prioritize access for marginalized women 
• The legislative initiative draws inspiration from international practices, noting that countries like Japan, Taiwan, China, Korea, Indonesia, and Mexico have already implemented menstrual leave policies 
• The bill frames menstrual leave as an extension of the right to life (Article 21), arguing that women should not be expected to work during menstruation given physical discomfort, mental health challenges, and potential hygiene-related difficulties 

Worldwide