In a welcome move, the Government of Karnataka recently approved Menstrual Leave Policy, 2025, allowing female employees throughout the State to avail one day paid leave every month, in addition to other paid leaves sanctioned by their organisation. This policy applies to all women employees both in the public and private sectors across the State. Further, this leave does not require any pre-approvals from employers, but only prior intimation by the employees to their respective authorities.

This move is worthy of emulation, as the State Government’s intention is to create a work environment that enhances women’s participation in the workforce. States such as Bihar, Kerala, and Odisha have implemented similar policies in the past. However, Karnataka’s policy explicitly covers both government and private sector employees, unlike those of the other States. Nevertheless, the initiative also warrants an analysis of its effectiveness in achieving the intended objective of women’s empowerment.

One of the shortcomings of the policy is that it appears to apply only to employees in the organised sector, as no government currently has adequate mechanisms to implement such a policy in the unorganised sector, which employs a larger workforce. As of October 2025, Karnataka has approximately 10.96 million (1,09,61,042) unorganised sector workers registered on the e-Shram portal, of whom 58.1 percent (about 6.36 million) are women. However, many more women workers remain unregistered on the portal. Consequently, a majority of women employees in the State are unlikely to benefit from the policy.

For micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), granting 12 additional paid leaves may lead to more absenteeism and payroll costs. From the women labour force point of view, the new leave policy may worsen the hiring bias, especially in micro and small firms that operate on very rigid workforce margins. Moreover, the state government has not proposed any reimbursement or tax offset to encourage small employers to implement the policy.

The private sector may view women as costlier or less reliable employees due to additional leave entitlements like maternity, childcare and now menstrual leave. The “Voice of Women” Survey Report (2024) by Aon sheds light on how women employees view workplace equity and flexibility, which is pertinent while evaluating policies like menstrual leave.

The survey mentions that findings reinforce years of research showing that women face microaggressions at work in the form of subtle and seemingly innocuous comments based on stereotypes. Nearly 42 percent women reported that they face judgmental comments or expressions on leaving work early or working remotely. Furthermore, one in three mothers reported facing career setbacks after returning from maternity leave — for 75 percent of them, the impact lasted up to two years, while 25 percent experienced setbacks lasting more than three years.

We can understand from the above-mentioned survey that women are already going through lot of unavoidable discrimination in their workplace irrespective of many DEI (Diversity, Equity and inclusion) friendly policies. These kinds of policies will even amplify the ongoing discrimination to next level and, it’s worth noting that without awareness among the people in the work environment about female menstrual health and it’s impacts this kind of policies just pay a lip service to the concept of women empowerment.

The periodic Labour Force Survey Report (2023-24) reveals that Karnataka’s Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR), which indicates how many people are either working or looking to work out of the total population, is 49.9 percent for rural women, lower than the nation’s average of 51.2 percent. For urban women it is 33.5 percent, slightly above the nation’s average of 31.2 percent. The consolidated LFPR of women in Karnataka is 43.6 percent lower than the nation’s average of 45.2 percent.

Further, Karnataka’s Worker Population Ratio (WPR), which indicates the proportion of working population, is 49.5 percent for rural women, a tad below the nation’s average of 50 percent. For urban women, it is 32 percent, considerably above than nation’s average of 28.8 percent. The consolidated WPR of women in Karnataka is 42.7 percent, slightly lower than the nation’s average of 43.7 percent.

If the state government policy is implemented without addressing the recruitment bias faced by women in the private sector, especially in small firms, the already existing gap between the Karnataka’s LFPR and WPR of rural women will be widen, weakening the State’s efforts towards women empowerment.

The policy may be modified to make it easier to implement. Instead of mandating complete paid leave, the governments can incentives organisations to grant remote work facilities for at least 3-4 consecutive days, wherever feasible. This will allow women to take proper care of their menstrual health. Also, the state government may consider this an opportune time to strictly enforce menstrual-friendly infrastructure in all workplaces with adequate hygienic and sanitation facilities across the public and private sectors.

It would be commendable if the State Government could find convergence between schemes such as Koosina Mane, which empower local bodies and promote decentralization, and the implementation of new policies related to women’s menstrual health. Such an integrated approach would be mutually beneficial to both employees and employers. Further, it is essential to consult as many stakeholders as possible, including women, before implementation of the policy.

The Karnataka State Menstrual leave policy is a welcome move, but it also brings some real concerns that may be overlooked. The matter requires a holistic understanding. It should aim to incentivise organisations instead of making them more hesitant to hire women, especially in smaller companies. The State Government should make sure the new policy supports both women and workplaces, without benefitting one at the cost of the other. Real inclusion means creating equal opportunities, not in offering special provisions that may inadvertently widen the very gap the policy seeks to close.

The Author is Public Policy Fellow at AgaPuram Policy Research Centre, Erode

The views expressed by the author are personal and does not reflect or represent the views of the AgaPuram Policy Research Centre, Erode.