Public toilets are legally obligated to provide Menstrual Hygiene Products (MHPs) free of cost and without discrimination. This is a legal duty, not a recommendation yet it is rarely visible in practice. When public toilets provide soap, water and toilet paper free of cost but require Menstruators to pre-plan, purchase and carry their own supplies, access becomes unequal and health is conditional. Instead of being a public guarantee, access to MHPs is converted into private risk management. The burden does not disappear, it shifts to individuals, to silence, to private coping and violates rights the State committed to protecting. This shift is not incidental or cultural but is systemic and is best understood as an institutional blind spot.
Before we continue, please note the following definitions and acronyms
- Menstrual Hygiene Products (MHPs) are the products used to catch menstrual flow such as pads, tampons, menstrual cups etc.
- A menstruator is a person who menstruates and therefore has menstrual health and hygiene needs. It is a gender-neutral term that includes girls, women, transgender and non-binary persons.
- Public sanitation facilities/restrooms/bathrooms all mean a toilet in a public space
Introduction
You may wonder or feel some type of way about reading so much (should you choose to continue) about a private space like a toilet on a public blog. The discomfort exists largely because India’s governance has perfected the art of treating bodily autonomy as a private inconvenience rather than a public obligation. In a country where non-consensual sex within a marriage still does not qualify as rape, the law itself demonstrates how easily certain areas of human life and harms are pushed out of sight and out of mind. Menstruation and its recognition in public sanitation facilities are treated the same way and can be best understood as an intentional institutional blind spot.
Perhaps, this is why the discomfort feels so sharp, a discussion that should have been public knowledge all along, remains tucked away by the very institutions that should have brought it into the light.
This blog is about the abovementioned blind spot: India’s public sanitation facilities, which are designed as if menstruation simply doesn’t exist. You may wonder and rightfully so “what happens when the authorities do recognize the need of MHPs in public restrooms? Does it mean free MHPs for everyone?” Well, yes. It will mean that every time you enter a public restroom, there will be a ready supply of products because the availability of these products becomes a legal entitlement instead of a charitable intervention or act of kindness by someone in power. You may also wonder “when metal mugs are secured with a chain to prevent theft in train restrooms, don’t you think MHPs will face the same fate?” The answer is simpler than you think; recognizing MHPs as a legal entitlement, means theft is impossible. One cannot steal something that the law already guarantees the right to have in the first place.
However, at present, this entitlement is non-existent. The State does not provide free MHPs in public restrooms, and this systemic omission is a direct violation of both international and constitutional guarantees. Under both accords, the failure to provide free MHPs violates two core legal obligations: the right to non-discrimination and the right to health. Let us look at each right in detail.
Violation of the Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination
The right to equality and non-discrimination is a foundational principle of both international human rights law and India’s constitutional framework. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) affirms that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, and that all rights and freedoms are guaranteed without distinction of any kind. Although the UDHR is not formally enforceable, its principles cannot be dismissed as external or aspirational in the Indian context. India was not a passive recipient of these norms; rather it was an active participant in shaping them. During the drafting of the UDHR, India’s delegate to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights successfully pressed for the replacement of the phrase “all men are born free and equal” with “all human beings,” ensuring that equality was embedded as a gender-neutral and universal guarantee from the outset. This was not a symbolic intervention. It reflects India’s early and deliberate commitment to equality as a structural principle of the global human rights order, one that is subsequently mirrored in Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution.
In this context, the exclusion of menstruators from public sanitation infrastructure cannot be justified as a legislative omission or policy oversight. It represents a failure to honour principles that India helped articulate and has constitutionally affirmed.
These principles acquire binding force through the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), to which India is a State Party. The Covenant imposes an immediate obligation on States to guarantee the exercise of all rights without discrimination, including discrimination based on sex or sex-linked status.
Public sanitation systems that provide soap, water, and toilet paper free of cost, yet exclude Menstrual Hygiene Products, fully accommodate non-menstruating bodies while imposing additional financial, logistical, and social burdens on menstruators. This arrangement is not neutral; it constitutes structural discrimination.
Further, requiring menstruators to pre-plan, purchase, carry, and privately manage supplies for a normal and unavoidable biological function reflects a systemic design premised on bodies that do not menstruate. Such design choices treat menstruation as an exception rather than an ordinary aspect of human biology. The result is unequal access to public sanitation facilities, produced not through explicit exclusion but through infrastructure that is biased by default.
Violation of the Right to Health
Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), every person has the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. This guarantee is mirrored domestically through Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted to protect meaningful existence, bodily autonomy, privacy, and the right to live with dignity. Together, these provisions impose a positive obligation on the State to create conditions that allow individuals to manage unavoidable biological processes safely and without harm.
The scope of this obligation is clarified by General Comment No. 14 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which explains that health-related goods and services must be available, accessible, acceptable, and of good quality. Accessibility, in turn, includes economic accessibility, commonly described as affordability. In a human rights context, affordability does not mean market pricing or nominal cost. It requires that access be structured so that cost never becomes a barrier to health or dignity. Where a good is essential, recurrent, and biologically unavoidable as MHPs are any cost, however small, functions as a barrier. In such circumstances, the only model that satisfies the requirement of economic accessibility is free provision at the point of use. Anything short of this displaces a systemic obligation onto the individual and converts a guaranteed right into a conditional privilege.
Accordingly, the failure to provide MHPs free of cost in public sanitation facilities constitutes a violation of the right to health under both international law and Article 21 of the Constitution. From this failure flow two distinct yet interconnected harms: physical harm and mental harm, each of which undermines the legal guarantee of health and dignity.
Physical Health Violation
The physical consequences of inadequate or absent access to menstrual hygiene products are immediate and medically well documented. When a menstruator is unable to access a product in a public space, the body is forced into unsafe adaptations: using newspaper, toilet paper or cloth scraps, or wearing the same pad or tampon far longer than medically recommended. These practices significantly increase the risk of urogenital infections, bacterial overgrowth, yeast infections and, in severe cases, toxic shock syndrome. In humid climates, prolonged exposure to dampness further exacerbates these risks.
Such outcomes are not incidental. They are the foreseeable result of public sanitation systems that fail to account for menstruation. By compelling menstruators to engage in medically unsafe practices, the State breaches its obligation under Article 12 of the ICESCR and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to protect physical health and prevent avoidable harm. The prevalence of menstruation-related illnesses as a silent epidemic is therefore not a medical anomaly but a consequence of systemic neglect.
Physical harm also arises where access is reduced to a single, unsuitable option. A one-size-fits-all approach to menstrual hygiene disregards medical diversity and exposes certain bodies to preventable health risks. Where product choice is absent, quality is poor, or safe disposal is unavailable, the provision of a product does not mitigate harm it reproduces it. Menstrual health cannot be separated from sanitation infrastructure; without the latter, the former cannot be safely exercised.
Mental Health Violation
The right to health under international and constitutional law includes the protection of mental wellbeing, dignity, and autonomy. Even where MHPs are technically available, the conditions under which access is granted can themselves violate this right.
When menstruators are required to approach staff and request a product, access is transformed into a discretionary interaction. This introduces a power imbalance that predictably produces hesitation, surveillance, and shame. Human rights research demonstrates that such gatekeeping often results in demands for justification, inconsistent access, and arbitrary refusal. While public sanitation facilities do not replicate the coercive environment of custodial institutions, the governing principle remains the same: a right delivered through permission is not a right, but a form of supervision.
Under the ICESCR and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the right to mental health requires that individuals manage intimate biological processes without scrutiny or dependency. Systems that condition access on interpersonal discretion undermine privacy, autonomy, and dignity. Accordingly, meaningful protection of mental health requires free menstrual hygiene product dispensing through automatic, private, and unconditional mechanisms in all public sanitation facilities.
Despite this clarity in the law, India’s legislative framework remains silent on the most basic requirement of menstrual dignity. While there are laws governing sanitation, building standards, and even a proposed Menstrual Hygiene Management Bill, none explicitly require public sanitation facilities to provide free menstrual hygiene products. This omission reflects a legal and infrastructural design that centres non-menstruating bodies and treats menstruation as peripheral. Therefore, meaningful legislation must move beyond general sanitation norms and explicitly mandate the provision of free MHPs through dispensing machines in all public sanitation facilities.
Recommendations
1. A Gender-Inclusive/Neutral Menstrual Rights Law
India requires a gender-inclusive statute that recognises free access to menstrual hygiene products as a legal entitlement, not a welfare measure limited to “women and girls.” Menstruation is not confined to cisgender women; trans men, non-binary persons, intersex persons, and gender-expansive individuals menstruate as well. Any legislative framework must therefore adopt a universal approach, providing period products to all who need them. Statutory language should shift from gender-specific terms to formulations such as “any person capable of menstruating,” in line with the Scottish model of universality.
2. A Clear and Enforceable Implementation Framework
Legislation must move beyond recognition and specify mechanisms of access. At a minimum, this should include:
- nationwide installation of dispensing machines for pads, tampons, and menstrual cups
- guaranteed product choice to accommodate medical and personal needs
- integration with a publicly accessible digital map or application, similar to Scotland’s PickupMyPeriod, indicating real-time availability
- mandatory coverage across all public spaces, including courts and tribunals, government offices, educational institutions, libraries, public transport hubs, highways, petrol pumps, hospitals, and other publicly accessible facilities
Access must be universal, automatic, and stigma-free.
3. Maintenance and Accountability
To prevent performative compliance, legislation must impose clear maintenance obligations, including refill schedules, monitoring requirements, and penalties for non-compliance. A dispenser that remains empty does not satisfy the right it purports to fulfil; it reproduces neglect under the appearance of compliance.
Conclusion
This analysis is not about pads or toilets in isolation. It concerns whether public infrastructure in India permits all persons to participate in public life on equal and dignified terms. A sanitation system that ignores menstruation imposes avoidable harm, exclusion, and dependency. Mandating free menstrual hygiene products in public sanitation facilities is not an exceptional demand, it is a necessary consequence of the rights India has already recognised and committed to uphold. Designing for menstruators affirms their presence in public space as expected and protected. That is what compliance with dignity, equality, and the right to health requires.
Aakrishti Kumar 
Leave a comment