The Supreme Court on Friday (January 30, 2026) issued a continuing mandamus to the Union Government and states to ensure the provision of free sanitary napkins and toilet facilities in schools. In a judgment authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, the Bench, also comprising Justice R. Mahadevan, termed the lack of menstrual hygiene management (MHM) not merely as a sanitation issue, but as a violation of the fundamental rights to equality, dignity, and education.Here are five significant observations made by the court in Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India & Ors. (2026 INSC 97):1.Menstrual health as a facet of the Right to LifeThe court observed that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses more than mere animal existence; it includes the right to health and dignity. The judgment explicitly links reproductive health and menstrual hygiene to the ability of a girl child to fully exercise her fundamental rights.“The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to menstrual health. Access to safe, effective, and affordable menstrual hygiene management measures helps a girl child attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health… Inaccessibility of menstrual hygiene management measures undermines the dignity of a girl child, as dignity finds expression in conditions that enable individuals to live without humiliation, exclusion, or avoidable suffering,” the bench noted. 2.The distinction between formal and substantive equalityInvoking Article 14, the court held that treating unequal individuals equally perpetuates discrimination. The judgment argues that the State has a positive obligation to provide affirmative support – such as sanitary products and infrastructure – to place girl students on an equal footing with their male counterparts.“The principle of substantive equality recognises that once two individuals are placed in unequal positions because of social, economic, or cultural factors, mere equal “treatment” becomes inadequate… For a menstruating girl child who cannot afford menstrual absorbents, the disadvantage is two-fold. First, vis-à-vis menstruating girl children who can afford menstrual absorbents. Secondly, vis-à-vis male counterparts or non-menstruating counterparts,” the judgment states.3.Intersectionality of gender and disabilityThe verdict places significant emphasis on the “coalesced vulnerability” of children with disabilities. It frames “reasonable accommodation” as a gateway right, noting that the lack of accessible toilets and hygiene support strikes a fatal blow to the education of girls with disabilities.“In case of children with disabilities, accessibility of washrooms is even more essential for inclusion and for enabling meaningful participation in school. Needless to say, the absence of such accessibility results in exclusion from education and reinforces the social and economic marginalization… We have no hesitation in saying that inaccessibility means not only depriving a girl child with disability of education but also violating her right to equality, freedom, and dignity,” the apex court observed.4.The role of men and boys in breaking stigmaIn a significant departure from viewing menstruation solely as a women’s issue, the court dedicated a specific section of the judgment to the “Role of Men in Menstruation.” It directed that boys and male teachers must be sensitised to prevent the harassment that often drives girls to drop out.“Menstruation should not be a topic that is only shared in hushed whispers. It is crucial that boys are educated about the biological reality of menstruation. A male student, unsensitised towards the issue, may harass a menstruating girl child which may discourage her from attending school… To put briefly, we would say, ignorance breeds insensitivity, knowledge breeds empathy,” the Bench remarked.5.Administrative failure as constitutional failureThe top court expressed dismay that 17 years after the enactment of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, schools still lack basic necessities. It ruled that non-compliance with the norms for toilets and hygiene is not an administrative oversight but a violation of the Constitution.The judgment concludes that “We are constrained to observe that such failure is not administrative but constitutional… The norms and standards laid down in the Schedule [of the RTE Act] are not merely procedural in nature but are integral to the effective realization of Section 3 of the RTE Act, and more particularly, the right to education under Article 21A.”