This motion debates whether state governments are legally and constitutionally obligated to legislate paid menstrual leave as a workplace right for women employees.
Aaj ka motion hai — 'State Governments Must Enact Mandatory Paid Menstrual Leave Laws for Women Employees' — yeh ek aisa sawal hai jo workplace equality, mahilaon ki swasthya zaroorat, aur State ki zimmedari ko ek saath chhoota hai. Is motion par hum dono pakshon ki daleelein sunenge, aur main chahti hoon ki sabse pehle Counsel Aarav apna paksh rakhein.
My lord, main yeh paksh leta hoon ki State Governments ko mandatory paid menstrual leave laws enact karni chahiye — aur is maang ki neenv khud hamare Constitution mein rakhi hui hai. Article 42 saaf kehta hai ki State, just aur humane conditions of work aur maternity relief ke liye provision karega — aur menstruation ek biological reality hai, ek medical condition hai, jo har maah ek working woman ko physically aur emotionally prabhavit karti hai; ise ignore karna 'humane conditions' ke seedhe khilaf hai. Agar Maternity Benefit Act pregnancy-related illness ke liye special leave de sakta hai, to yeh Parliament khud maan chuka hai ki reproductive health aur work conditions alag nahi hain — ab State ko is logic ko aage badhate hue menstrual leave bhi secure karni chahiye.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 39A; Maternity Benefit Act (CENTRAL ACT) · Section 10
My Lord, main is motion ka poora vipaksh karti hoon — kyunki ek mandatory, blanket menstrual leave law asliyat mein mahilaon ko workforce se aur door karti hai, unhe aage nahi. Article 42 ke tahat State ka dayitva hai 'just and humane conditions' ensure karna — lekin 'just' ka matlab yeh nahi ki ek aisa kanoon thopa jaaye jo employers ko mahila hiring se hi discourage kar de.
Ref: THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 · Section 42
My lord, vipaksh kehta hai ki yeh kanoon employers par aarthik bojh daalega — lekin main kehna chahta hoon ki Article 42 ke under State ka SEEDHA dayitva hai ki woh 'just and humane conditions of work' aur 'maternity relief' ensure kare, aur menstrual leave usi constitutional mandate ka swabhavik vistar hai. Maternity Benefit Act ki Section 10 bhi yeh swikarti hai ki reproductive health se judi bimariyan kaam-kaaj ke dauran vishesh protection maangti hain — phir menstrual pain ko alag kyun rakha jaaye? Arthik 'burden' ka argument constitutional zimmedari ke saamne tik nahi sakta — State ki economic capacity ke baad bhi Article 41 kehta hai ki humane conditions dena State ka farz hai.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 39A; Maternity Benefit Act (CENTRAL ACT) · Section 10; Constitution of India · Article 39A
My lord, paksh ne Article 42 ko bahut zor se pakda — lekin aur ke alfa-z dekhiye: 'just and humane conditions of work' — yeh State ko ek specific biological cycle ke liye MANDATORY paid leave IMPOSE karne ka adesha nahi deta, balki yeh ek directive hai jo flexibility maangta hai, rigidity nahi. Agar is logic se chalen, to menstrual leave ko mandatory banana aur employers par ekla bojh dalna ulta women ko hiring mein discourage karega — jo khud ek gender-injustice hoga. Isliye main kehti hoon, yeh kanoon jis problem ko solve karna chahta hai, usi problem ko badha dega.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 39A; THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 · Section 42
Petitioner ki taraf ne kaha ki mandatory paid menstrual leave ek constitutional zaroorat hai — Article 42 ke humane conditions of work ke mandate ko fulfill karne ka yeh ek seedha raasta hai. Respondent ki taraf ne kaha ki aisi blanket legislation workplace mein women ki employability ko hurt kar sakti hai aur economic burden create kar sakti hai. Main suggest karungi ki States ek middle path apnayen — phased, evidence-based policy banayen jo Article 42 ke spirit ko bhi honour kare aur employers ki feasibility ko bhi dhyan mein rakhe, chahe woh flexible leave pooling ho ya ESI mechanism ke through support. Ab main citizens se request karungi ki is debate ko rate karen aur apni raay zaahir karen.
Ref: THE EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948 · Section 50