A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Delhi High Court challenging the imposition of 12% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on Sanitary Napkins.
A bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar issued notices to the Centre and Goods and Services Tax Council directing them to file their response.
The Petitioner, Zarmina Israr Khan, a Ph.D. scholar in African studies at the Jawahar Lal Nehru University(JNU), sought the direction or order quashing the imposition of 12% Goods and Services Tax on Sanitary Napkins, and declaring Sanitary Napkins to be liable to a ‘nil’ rate or a reduced rate.
The Petitioner contended that, the impugned levy violated the inviolable and fundamental right to life that is contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India in as much as it makes it more onerous for women to be able to access an essential item relating to their reproductive, and overall, health.
The petitioner also stated that, “impugned levy in fact amounts to a levy on the reproductive rights of women, which include the right to gain access to reproductive health services, and which is ex-facie unsustainable and opposed to the Constitutional scheme”.
The petition alleged that 12% GST on Sanitary Napkins is discriminatory and violative of Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India in as much it burdens only women, who ultimately are the consumers of sanitary napkins. A menstrual cycle is not a matter of choice. Sanitary napkins are thus, not a luxury, nor are they a life-style product. On the contrary, they are, in fact, a basic necessity and an essential item for women.
“Impugned levy is diametrically opposed to the commitment towards securing just and humane conditions of work enshrined in Article 42 of the Directive Principles of State Policy. Further, considering the importance of sanitary napkins in ensuring women access to the workplace in particular, and public spaces in general, during the period of mensuration, the impugned levy also violates the right of women to an adequate means of livelihood and also compromises their health, thus falling afoul of the commitment contained in Articles 39 and 47 of the Directive Principles of State Policy. Though the same may not be enforceable in the strict sense, there can be no cavil that it is the duty of the State to adhere to the commitments contained in the Directive Principles while framing laws, and it cannot be permitted to act to the contrary as it has done in the present case”, the petition also added.
The Court posted the matter for hearing on November 15.
Read the full text of the petition below.
