Monetary Claims in Matrimonial Disputes Cannot Survive Without Evidence: Kerala High Court Rejects ₹1.24 Crore Claim for Lack of Proof Oral Partition Can Defeat Coparcenary Claims, But Not Statutory Succession: Madras High Court Draws Sharp Line Between Section 6 And Section 8 Substantial Compliance with Section 83 Is Sufficient—Election Petition Not to Be Dismissed on Hypertechnical Grounds: Orissa High Court Oral Family Arrangement Can’t Be Rewritten By Daughters, But Father’s Share Still Opens To Succession: Madras High Court Rebalances Coparcenary Rights Section 173(8) of CrPC | Power to Order Further Investigation Exists—But Not to Dictate How It Should Be Done: Rajasthan High Court Constitution Does Not Envisage a Choice Between Environmental Protection and Rule of Law: Supreme Court Lays Down Due Process Framework for Eviction from Assam Reserved Forests Coercion Is Not Always Physical — Within Families, Subservience To Elder's Authority May Constitute Undue Influence: Supreme Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Alleging Fraud in Family Partition Cannot be Rejected at Threshold; ‘Conciliation Award’ Requires Strict Statutory Compliance: Supreme Court Execution Court Cannot Decide Validity of Partition Deed:  Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Divide Between Civil and Execution Courts Constructive Res Judicata Cannot Defeat Explicit Liberty to Sue: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Challenge Family Partition Deed Despite Earlier Proceedings Photocopy Is Not Proof – PoA Must Be Proven Before Property Can Be Sold: Supreme Court Holds Sale Deeds Void for Want of Valid Power of Attorney Serious Charges Alone Cannot Justify Indefinite Custody: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Pune Crash Conspiracy Case Final Decree in Partition Suit Must Be Fully Stamped to Be Executable: Calcutta High Court Grants Liberty to Decree Holder to Cure Defect Issuance of Cheque by Accused Voluntarily on Behalf of Brother Attracts Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Section 23 Protects Trust, Not Technicalities: Karnataka High Court Annuls Gift by 84-Year-Old Father Misquoting IPC Sections Doesn’t Vitiate Chargesheet: Kerala High Court Section 187(2) BNSS | Absence of Accused While Granting Extension to File Challan Vitiates Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail in NDPS Case" Reports Prepared During Criminal Proceedings Not Per Se Admissible In Consumer Proceedings Unless Duly Proved In Accordance Consumer Protection Act: NCDRC Declaration of Account as Fraud Without Supplying Basis of Allegation Violates Audi Alteram Partem: Calcutta High Court Quashes Article 22(2) | Detention Without Magistrate’s Authority Beyond 24 Hours Is Constitutional Breach: Delhi High Court Grants Bail in MCOCA Case Service Tax on Individual Advocate? Not When Notifications Say ‘Nil’: Bombay High Court Quashes Demand and Bank Lien Plea That Property Belongs Exclusively To One Spouse Despite Joint Title Is Barred Under Section 4 Benami Transactions Act: Madras High Court

RTE Act | Free Sanitary Pads, Vending Machines & Separate Toilets Mandatory for All Schools: Supreme Court Issues Continuing Mandamus

31 January 2026 2:04 PM

By: sayum


“The norms and standards laid down in the Schedule are not merely procedural in nature but are integral to the effective realization of Section 3 of the RTE Act.”— In a seminal ruling, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, has issued a slew of mandatory directions to the Union and State Governments to ensure free sanitary napkins and separate toilets in all schools, enforcing the "norms and standards" of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009.

Mandatory Infrastructure: Beyond "Walls to Hide"

The Court expressed dismay that even 17 years after the RTE Act, many schools lack basic facilities. It clarified that Section 19 of the RTE Act, which mandates norms for school recognition, is non-negotiable. The Bench directed that all schools—Government, aided, or private—must provide functional, gender-segregated toilets with usable water connectivity. The Court explicitly rejected the "paucity of funds" defense, stating that financial constraints cannot justify the violation of fundamental rights.

“We are constrained to observe that such failure is not administrative but constitutional.”

Free Sanitary Napkins and Disposal Mechanisms

The Court has directed all States and Union Territories to provide oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins free of cost to girl students. These must be dispensed preferably through vending machines within toilet premises. Furthermore, to ensure hygiene and environmental compliance, the Court mandated the installation of safe disposal mechanisms (incinerators or covered bins) in accordance with Solid Waste Management Rules. The judgment also directs the establishment of MHM Corners equipped with spare innerwear and uniforms to handle exigencies.

Breaking the Taboo: Role of Men and Boys

In a progressive stride, the Court emphasized that menstrual health is a "shared responsibility" and not solely a woman's issue. The Bench directed that male teachers and boys must be sensitized and educated about the biological reality of menstruation to eliminate stigma and teasing. The Court noted that an unsupportive or hostile environment is as much a barrier to education as the lack of toilets.

“Ignorance breeds insensitivity, knowledge breeds empathy.”

Continuing Mandamus and Accountability

Recognizing that previous policies often remained on paper, the Court issued a Continuing Mandamus. The Union Government must monitor compliance across all States. District Education Officers (DEOs) are directed to conduct periodic inspections and mandatory anonymous surveys of students to assess the reality of facilities. The Court has listed the matter for a compliance report in three months, warning that non-compliance by schools will lead to de-recognition.

Date of Decision: 30th January, 2026

Latest Legal News