India currently trails neighbours like Bangladesh and Nepal in the gender pay gap. Given that, was the Supreme Court’s refusal to mandate menstrual leave — citing potential "backlash" against women’s employability — a pragmatic safeguard or a missed opportunity to champion workforce equity? Given India’s stagnating female labour force participation, could a blanket mandate inadvertently deepen systemic bias? Can’t India pilot a balanced model, such as optional leave or tax-incentivised policies, to support women’s biological needs without compromising their professional competitiveness in a fragile job market?
— R Sivakami, Mylapore
Once, it was thought that regulatory laws, such as the Factories Act, which banned night shifts for women and several other requirements, like separate restrooms, frisking staff, maternity leave, and feeding breaks, would reduce the women's workforce in the labour market. However, that was not the case. The stereotyping of the women workforce in areas like teaching, para-medical staff, and telephone operators has become a thing of the past. Tamil Nadu is the leader in the ratio of women in the workforce tops the country.
Night shift bans have been removed, and work can be done with consent under the new labour codes. The Maharashtra move to ban dancing girls in bars was struck down on the ground it is gender-biased and to ensure women's right to opportunities. Similarly, the East Punjab excise rule banning women bartenders in Delhi bars was also struck down by the Supreme Court.
But all these decisions were made on the basis that it should not be at the cost of women's potential employment opportunities. But the case of menstrual leave does not come under this head. No leading trade unions and service associations have ever made any such demand. When the SC recently dismissed a PIL, it correctly said that such a condition may reduce women's employment. What kind of special accommodation is required during that period requires serious discussion, and appropriate regulatory measures are to be conceived.
Residents in Madhavaram are facing systemic negligence from Tangedco. Despite escalating grievances to the Greater Chennai Corporation and the CMO, on the ground, action remains nonexistent. While online complaints are acknowledged instantly, they remain unresolved for months. A critical current concern is the delay in meter readings; residents fear this postponement will lead to "slab jumping," resulting in inflated, punitive billing. With even the Ungaludan Stalin initiative yielding no results, several welfare associations are now considering legal action to address this departmental lethargy. What specific legal remedies or writs can we pursue to compel Tangedco to adhere to its service timelines and ensure fair, transparent billing for the community?
— John Jacob Thomas, Madhavaram
We cannot deal with omnibus grievances and the right legal remedies in this one question. Ultimately, there are several civic grievances requiring a systemic response from the authorities. Once it was thought that consumer forums would give a quick remedy, but that was not so. Then it was thought that the Right to Information Act would get quicker response from the public authorities on pending grievances. But the stage has now been set to demand a "Right to Services Act" which will fix timelines for public services. Some states like Delhi have enacted a law to that effect.