Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Menstrual Health and Hygiene.
Based on 25 evaluated answers to this question on CollectorBabu: here is what aspirants most often missed, the mistakes that cost marks, and a model answer.
What most aspirants missed
- Article 14 and 15(3) angle: menstrual exclusion as gender discrimination, with Article 15(3) enabling special provisions for women
- Puttaswamy (2017) 9-judge bench overruling ADM Jabalpur (1976) and recognising privacy as intrinsic to dignity and liberty
- Positive State obligations under Article 21 read with Article 47 (public health) and Article 41
- Puttaswamy's three-part test (legality, legitimate aim, proportionality) as the limit on privacy and FR scope
- Link to Article 21A and girls' school attendance, with dropout data as evidence
Common mistakes
- Describing the judgment in general terms without naming the case, its bench or its directions to the Centre and States
- Treating the answer as a list of rights without explaining how the judgment expands their scope beyond earlier interpretations
- Using weak or unverified examples such as unrelated bans or uncertain case names, instead of verified precedents
- Ignoring the 'examine' demand by offering no critical note on implementation gaps or limits
What the better answers did
- Opening with Article 21 and the Puttaswamy foundation, then linking the menstrual health judgment to it
- Using Articles 14, 15(3) and 21A to show the equality and education dimensions of the same judgment
- Stating the reasonable restrictions test clearly, with one concrete example from Aadhaar
- Ending with a balanced view of expansion versus enforcement gaps
Introduction
Open by placing Article 21 and the Puttaswamy privacy holding as the base, then state how the menstrual health judgment extends that scope to women and girls.
Conclusion
Close by weighing the expansion of FR scope against implementation gaps, and suggest that State obligations under Article 21 and 47 need to be enforced in practice.
Model answer
Fundamental Rights are read dynamically. The Supreme Court has used Article 21 to cover dignity, health and privacy, and a recent judgment on menstrual health and hygiene extends this expansion to the everyday lives of women and girls, while the scope remains bounded by reasonable restrictions.
Expansion of scope
- Article 21 read with Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity (1996) treats health as part of life with dignity, so menstrual hygiene becomes a basic health entitlement.
- Puttaswamy (2017, 9-judge bench) overruled ADM Jabalpur (1976) and held privacy intrinsic to dignity and liberty, covering bodily autonomy and informational privacy.
- Articles 14 and 15(3): menstrual exclusion is gender discrimination, and Article 15(3) permits special provisions for women.
- Article 21A: lack of toilets and pads drives girls out of school, linking menstrual health to the right to education.
Positive State obligations and DPSP
- Article 47 (public health duty), read with Article 21, supports State action such as subsidised pads under the Menstrual Hygiene Scheme and Janaushadhi outlets. GST on sanitary pads was removed in 2018.
- Kerala's 2023 menstrual leave policy shows state-level action, while the Maternity Benefit Act and POSH Act offer related protections.
Limits on the scope
- Puttaswamy test: legality, legitimate aim and proportionality, with restrictions under Article 19(2) and Article 21.
- Aadhaar (2018, 5-judge bench) upheld the scheme but struck down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, showing that welfare schemes can justify only limited intrusion.
The judgment shows FR scope expanding from negative liberty to State duties enabling dignity and equality, but implementation gaps mean the expansion is only as strong as its enforcement.
Write this answer and get it evaluated
Handwritten answers, expert-reviewed, back in under 24 hours. Start UPSC Mains answer evaluation with the ₹49 Trial.
Evaluate my answerAsked in UPSC Mains 2017 GS Paper 2 (Q12). See all 2017 GS Paper 2 questions
More GS Paper 2 questions
- Lateral entry into civil services is seen as a reformative step, yet it continues to attract criticism and controversy. Discuss.
- While accountability often necessitates documentation, an overemphasis on bureaucratic procedures and excessive paperwork can inadvertently silence the very voices that public policy intends to empower, particularly at the grassroots. Examine the above statement with suitable illustrations.
- The states in India seem reluctant to empower urban local bodies both functionally as well as financially. Comment.
- Despite recent steps towards inducting women into combat roles, their participation remains low. Examine the key challenges impeding the greater inclusion of women in the Indian armed forces. Also, suggest suitable measures to enhance their participation.
- As NITI Aayog completes 10 years of its establishment, critically examine its role in the planning and development paradigm of governance in India.
- Compare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to parliamentary sovereignty.