The Supreme Court Bar Association has petitioned the Supreme Court following allegations that women sanitation workers at Maharshi Dayanand University in Haryana were subjected to degrading "period checks," including demands for photographic evidence. The petition requests the Court to issue binding guidelines, similar to Vishaka, to safeguard dignity, privacy, and health during menstruation at workplaces and educational institutions. It references K.S. Puttaswamy (privacy) and other precedents to establish bodily autonomy under Article 21. This issue directly impacts workplace dignity, consent, and medical privacy, areas where informal practices often surpass policy.
The psychological harm extends beyond immediate outrage. Workers internalize the notion that pain or discomfort must be "proven" to be acknowledged; supervisors prioritize efficiency over dignity; colleagues interpret silence as policy. Such incidents have a ripple effect in low-wage, outsourced, and campus workforces where power disparities are pronounced. The emotional climate within teams becomes wary and distrustful, particularly for women in sanitation, hospitality, manufacturing, and facilities. HRBPs are discreetly asked questions like: Can managers request menstrual details? Who has access to medical notes? What happens if I refuse a demeaning instruction? Will the ICC consider this harassment even without sexual intent? Policies must provide clear and compassionate answers.
The response from compliance/leadership should integrate POSH (hostile environment and dignity), privacy-by-design in leave/health workflows, and vendor governance. Draft a Menstrual Dignity SOP: no intrusive verification, private reporting channels, access to sanitary products and rest breaks, and anti-retaliation guarantees. Train line managers and housekeeping contractors. Route violations to ICC or grievance committees with time-bound action and documentation. Incorporate confidentiality in HRIS (restricted fields, audit logs), and add signage that normalizes support instead of suspicion. Culture changes when dignity is operationalized.
What single sentence would you add to your code of conduct to ban intrusive "proof" demands about health or periods? Which privacy controls in HRIS or attendance systems will you activate this week to protect sensitive health data?
The psychological harm extends beyond immediate outrage. Workers internalize the notion that pain or discomfort must be "proven" to be acknowledged; supervisors prioritize efficiency over dignity; colleagues interpret silence as policy. Such incidents have a ripple effect in low-wage, outsourced, and campus workforces where power disparities are pronounced. The emotional climate within teams becomes wary and distrustful, particularly for women in sanitation, hospitality, manufacturing, and facilities. HRBPs are discreetly asked questions like: Can managers request menstrual details? Who has access to medical notes? What happens if I refuse a demeaning instruction? Will the ICC consider this harassment even without sexual intent? Policies must provide clear and compassionate answers.
The response from compliance/leadership should integrate POSH (hostile environment and dignity), privacy-by-design in leave/health workflows, and vendor governance. Draft a Menstrual Dignity SOP: no intrusive verification, private reporting channels, access to sanitary products and rest breaks, and anti-retaliation guarantees. Train line managers and housekeeping contractors. Route violations to ICC or grievance committees with time-bound action and documentation. Incorporate confidentiality in HRIS (restricted fields, audit logs), and add signage that normalizes support instead of suspicion. Culture changes when dignity is operationalized.
What single sentence would you add to your code of conduct to ban intrusive "proof" demands about health or periods? Which privacy controls in HRIS or attendance systems will you activate this week to protect sensitive health data?