The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India recognises access to menstrual hygiene as part of fundamental rights, linking it to equality, dignity, privacy, and the right to education. The Court held that lack of sanitary products and proper school facilities forces many girls to miss classes, which amounts to structural discrimination under Article 14 and a violation of dignity under Article 21. It directed governments to provide free sanitary napkins, functional and private toilets, safe disposal systems, menstrual hygiene support spaces, and awareness through school curricula, making menstrual health a legal and educational priority rather than a welfare issue.
Click to View MoreKerala’s decision to waive ₹18.75 crore in loans for Wayanad landslide survivors signals a shift toward financial rehabilitation. It addresses post-disaster debt traps, contrasts State welfare with rigid national frameworks, and highlights the need for catastrophe insurance and reforms to strengthen disaster justice and recovery systems.
Click to View MoreThe Supreme Court ruled that menstrual health and hygiene in schools is part of the right to life and dignity under Article 21. It linked poor MHM to inequality and school dropouts, directing schools to provide free sanitary pads, proper toilets, and awareness education to remove stigma.
Click to View MoreIndia’s environmental crisis, seen in Delhi’s chronic smog, exposes constitutional gaps. Though courts read a healthy environment into Article 21 using principles like Polluter Pays and Public Trust, weak enforcement persists. An explicit constitutional amendment would convert this implied right into a clear, enforceable fundamental guarantee, strengthening accountability and citizen protection.
Click to View MoreThe debate on criminalising marital rape has sharpened as the Supreme Court examines petitions against the marital rape exception retained in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Critics argue it violates Articles 14 and 21 by denying married women equal protection. Despite government resistance, expert bodies like the Justice J.S. Verma Committee have urged its abolition.
Click to View MoreThe Supreme Court's 2025 Amlesh Kumar vs State of Bihar ruling upheld the Selvi precedent: forced narco-analysis violates Articles 20(3) and 21. While test results are inadmissible, evidence discovered through the test may be admissible, emphasizing mental privacy and adherence to rights.
Click to View MoreAnti-conversion laws, meant to curb forced conversions, face constitutional challenges, particularly violating Article 21 (Right to Privacy and Choice). Critics argue vague terms and the reversed burden of proof lead to misuse against inter-faith couples and minorities. The Supreme Court must now balance individual liberty with the state's interest in public order.
Click to View MoreThe Supreme Court to review the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, which bars couples with a surviving child from using surrogacy. The case tests whether the state can restrict reproductive autonomy under Article 21, balancing individual freedom against surrogate exploitation concerns.
Click to View More
© 2026 iasgyan. All right reserved