Type: Prelims Only

Why in the News

The Supreme Court of India expressed concern that making paid menstrual leave legally mandatory could unintentionally harm women’s career prospects and employment opportunities.

Key Observations by the Court

Possible Career Impact

• The Bench led by Surya Kant cautioned that a mandatory law for menstrual leave could:
  • Discourage employers from assigning major responsibilities to women.
  • Reduce employment opportunities for young women.
  • Lead to workplace bias in hiring or promotions.

Preference for Voluntary Policies

• The Court distinguished between:
  • Statutory mandatory rights, and
  • Voluntary policies adopted by employers or institutions.
• It encouraged voluntary initiatives instead of imposing a compulsory nationwide law.

Context of the Petition

• The plea sought a uniform national law granting paid menstrual leave to: Working women and Female students.
• The petitioner argued that such leave is linked to dignity and health under Article 21 (Right to Life).

Existing Examples in India

• Some states and institutions already provide menstrual leave voluntarily: Odisha, Kerala, and Karnataka.
• Certain universities and private organisations have also introduced menstrual leave policies.

International Context

• Several countries have adopted menstrual leave policies, including: Spain, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Zambia
• The petition also cited India’s commitment under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

Significance

• Raises an important debate on gender equality vs workplace practicality.
• Highlights the need for sensitive workplace policies while avoiding unintended discrimination.

[2019] With reference to the Maternity Benefit Amendment Act, 2017, consider the following statements: Pregnant women are entitled for three months pre-delivery and three months post-delivery paid leave. This act applies to all organisations with 20 or more employees. It has made it mandatory for every organisation with 100 or more employees to have a crèche. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 only (c) 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

Why in the News

The Supreme Court of India refused to direct the government to mandate Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT) in blood banks for screening donated blood before transfusions.

Court’s Decision

• A bench headed by Surya Kant declined to issue a judicial order making NAT tests compulsory.
• The Court said judges lack specialised expertise in medical science and cost assessment required for such policy decisions.
• States also have financial constraints, which must be considered before mandating expensive tests.

Direction Given

• The petitioner NGO was allowed to submit representations to State Health Secretaries.
• State governments may decide on NAT adoption with the advice of medical experts.

What is Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT)?

NAT (Nucleic Acid Test) is a molecular diagnostic test that detects the genetic material (DNA/RNA) of viruses in blood.

Detects infections such as:

• Human Immunodeficiency Virus
• Hepatitis B virus
• Hepatitis C virus

Advantages

• Detects infections earlier during the “window period” before antibodies appear.
• More accurate and sensitive than traditional screening tests.

Limitation

• Much more expensive, making universal adoption difficult for many public hospitals.

Current Standard Test

Most blood banks in India currently use the Enzyme‑Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), which detects antibodies against viruses.

Context of the Petition

• Filed by an NGO to protect thalassemia patients, who require frequent blood transfusions.
• The plea gained attention after several children in Madhya Pradesh reportedly contracted HIV from contaminated blood transfusions in 2025.

Constitutional Argument

• The petitioner argued that safe blood transfusion is part of the Right to Life under Article 21, but the Court held that policy decisions involving cost and technology should be taken by governments with expert input.

[2019] With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following? (a) The decisions taken by the Election Commission of India while discharging its duties cannot be challenged in any court of law. (b) The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament. (c) In the event of grave financial crisis in the country, the President of India can declare Financial Emergency without the counsel from the Cabinet. (d) State Legislatures cannot make laws on certain matters without the concurrence of Union Legislature.

Why in the News

The Supreme Court of India ruled that income alone cannot determine the “creamy layer” among OBCs, and clarified how children of private sector and PSU employees should be treated in comparison with those of government servants. The judgment was delivered by Justices P. S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan.

What is the “Creamy Layer”?

• The concept emerged from the landmark Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).
• It excludes the economically and socially advanced members of the OBC category from reservation benefits.
• Currently, the income ceiling for creamy layer is ₹8 lakh per year.

What the Supreme Court Said

1. Income Cannot Be the Sole Criterion

• The Court held that salary income alone cannot determine creamy layer status.
• The social position and post of the parents must also be considered.

2. Equality Between Government and Private Sector Employees

• The Court addressed discrimination created by a 2004 government clarification:
• Earlier:
  • Salary of private sector and PSU employees was counted in income.
  • Salary of government employees was not counted.
• The Court ruled this creates “hostile discrimination” between similarly placed OBC candidates.

This violates equality principles under:

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India
• Article 15 of the Constitution of India
• Article 16 of the Constitution of India

What Changes After the Verdict

• Equal Treatment
  • Children of PSU and private sector employees will now be assessed similar to government employees, considering the status of the post, not only income.

Benefits for Affected Candidates

• Candidates previously denied OBC status in exams (like the Civil Services Examination) may now receive benefits.
• The Court allowed the government to create supernumerary posts if necessary to accommodate them.

Background of the Issue

• 1993 DoPT guidelines excluded salary and agricultural income while determining creamy layer.
• A 2004 clarification included salary income for private/PSU employees, causing the dispute.

[2023] Consider the following statements: Statement-I: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgements that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for maintenance of efficiency of administration. Statement-II : Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term ‘efficiency of administration’. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements? (a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I (b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I (c) Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect (d) Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct