The Supreme Court Bar Association has approached the Supreme Court following allegations that women sanitation workers at Maharshi Dayanand University in Haryana were subjected to degrading "period checks," which included demands for photographic evidence. The petition urges the Court to issue binding guidelines, similar to Vishaka, to safeguard dignity, privacy, and health during menstruation at workplaces and educational institutions. It refers to K.S. Puttaswamy (privacy) and other precedents to establish bodily autonomy under Article 21. For HR leaders, this falls directly into the areas of workplace dignity, consent, and medical privacy, where informal practices often outpace policy.
The psychological harm goes beyond outrage. Workers internalize the idea that pain or discomfort must be "proved" to be believed; supervisors learn that speed takes precedence over dignity; colleagues interpret silence as policy. Such incidents have a ripple effect through low-wage, outsourced, and campus workforces where power gaps are significant. The emotional tone in teams becomes cautious and distrustful, particularly for women in sanitation, hospitality, manufacturing, and facilities. HRBPs are asked whispered questions: can managers ask for menstrual details, who sees medical notes, what if I refuse a demeaning instruction, will the ICC treat this as harassment even without sexual intent? Policies must provide clear and compassionate answers.
Compliance/leadership response should integrate POSH (hostile environment and dignity), privacy-by-design in leave/health workflows, and vendor governance. A Menstrual Dignity SOP should be drafted: no intrusive verification, private reporting channels, access to sanitary products and rest breaks, and anti-retaliation guarantees; line managers and housekeeping contractors should be trained; violations should be routed to ICC or grievance committees with time-bound action and documentation. Confidentiality should be embedded in HRIS (restricted fields, audit logs), and signage should be added 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 goes beyond outrage. Workers internalize the idea that pain or discomfort must be "proved" to be believed; supervisors learn that speed takes precedence over dignity; colleagues interpret silence as policy. Such incidents have a ripple effect through low-wage, outsourced, and campus workforces where power gaps are significant. The emotional tone in teams becomes cautious and distrustful, particularly for women in sanitation, hospitality, manufacturing, and facilities. HRBPs are asked whispered questions: can managers ask for menstrual details, who sees medical notes, what if I refuse a demeaning instruction, will the ICC treat this as harassment even without sexual intent? Policies must provide clear and compassionate answers.
Compliance/leadership response should integrate POSH (hostile environment and dignity), privacy-by-design in leave/health workflows, and vendor governance. A Menstrual Dignity SOP should be drafted: no intrusive verification, private reporting channels, access to sanitary products and rest breaks, and anti-retaliation guarantees; line managers and housekeeping contractors should be trained; violations should be routed to ICC or grievance committees with time-bound action and documentation. Confidentiality should be embedded in HRIS (restricted fields, audit logs), and signage should be added 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?