Supreme Court Replaces Oxo-Biodegradable Napkin Standard with Compostable Standard for School Girls
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan modified its January 2026 direction on sanitary napkins in schools, citing microplastic pollution risks from oxo-biodegradable materials.
The Supreme Court on 1 September 2026 modified a direction it had issued on 30 January 2026 in Jaya Thakur v. Government of India, a writ petition concerning menstrual health infrastructure in schools. The earlier direction had required all States and Union Territories to provide oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins meeting ASTM D-6954 standards free of cost to girl students. The Court replaced that standard with one requiring “biodegradable, biocompatible and compostable sanitary napkins in compliance with ISO 17088 read with IS 5405 standards.” The change came after an interim application by the Indian Compostable Polymer Association brought to the Court's attention that oxo-biodegradable napkins, when disposed of in landfills, burial pits, or through incineration, break down into microplastics and nanoplastics rather than decomposing cleanly. The Union of India supported the modification.
How the Dispute Reached the Court Again
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1000 of 2022 is a continuing proceeding in which the Court has issued directions on girls' toilet facilities, menstrual hygiene management corners, disposal systems, teacher sensitisation, and the availability of sanitary products in schools. By order dated 25 May 2026, the Court had called for a fresh progress report from all States and had asked the Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, to examine the material composition of the sanitary napkins being distributed.
On 31 August 2026, the Union filed an affidavit compiling responses from States and Union Territories on toilet construction, handwashing facilities, napkin distribution, MHM corners, disposal mechanisms, and teacher training. That affidavit, and an interim application bearing I.A. No. 138830 of 2026, came up for hearing on 1 September 2026.
The Oxo-Biodegradable Problem
The Indian Compostable Polymer Association's interim application drew a distinction between three categories of materials. Compostable biodegradable materials break down completely in a controlled composting environment within a specified time, leaving no harmful residue. Ordinary biodegradable materials degrade through microbial action, though the rate depends on surrounding conditions. Oxo-biodegradable materials are made from fossil-based plastics with additives that trigger degradation only when exposed to heat, light, and oxygen. In landfills and burial pits, where ultraviolet radiation and oxygen are largely absent, oxo-biodegradable materials behave like conventional plastics and fragment into microplastics and nanoplastics.
The Court noted that menstrual waste in India is presently disposed of through municipal dry and wet waste streams, open dumping, burial, and incineration. Given inadequate segregation at source, limited processing infrastructure, and social constraints around menstruation, the conditions required for oxo-biodegradable materials to break down safely are rarely present. The Union, in response to the application, supported a shift to biodegradable napkins, stating that some States and UTs had also raised the issue of non-availability of napkins meeting the ASTM D-6954 specification.
Why the Court Preferred the Biodegradable Standard
The Court gave two reasons for preferring biodegradable and compostable napkins made from materials such as bamboo, jute, banana fibre, starch, and corn. First, such napkins are free from harmful chemicals, bleaching agents, and synthetic fragrances that carry long-term health risks. Second, they reduce the environmental burden that would otherwise pass to the next generation.
The Court observed that when biodegradable and compostable napkins are disposed of through burial pits, they decompose naturally, whereas oxo-biodegradable material “merely accelerates the breakdown of visible plastic into smaller or rather less manageable forms.”
The Court also directed States and UTs to begin promoting reusable sanitary napkins, menstrual cups, and period panties by educating girl students on their use and the precautions required. It described this as a gradual move towards eco-friendly and scientifically validated menstrual absorbents.
Compliance Gaps Identified State by State
The Court acknowledged that progress had been made since the main judgment but said it was “discontent with the manner in which compliance is reported.” It found that some States had responded with bare statistics or yes/no answers where subjective explanations were required, reflecting non-application of mind.
On girls' toilets, the Court pointed out that Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Lakshadweep, and Puducherry had reported saturation coverage while their own data showed that toilets accessible to children with special needs were fewer than the total number of schools. Assam reported a similar gap in handwashing facilities. Punjab's report was found to be illegible. Tamil Nadu had claimed saturation on gender-segregated toilets while its figures showed the count of schools with such toilets was less than the total school count.
On sanitary products and MHM corners, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu provided data in two columns that did not clearly indicate how many schools were actually supplying napkins or in what manner. Karnataka, Jammu & Kashmir, Odisha, and Arunachal Pradesh claimed full coverage while their data on vending machines installed and schools where napkins were provided fell short of total school numbers.
On disposal systems, Bihar, Gujarat, Delhi, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh reported full coverage while the count of schools with disposal systems in place was materially less than the total. For Jammu & Kashmir, Gujarat, and Uttar Pradesh, the Court also found inconsistencies between two columns dealing with disposal mechanisms. Punjab's data was again illegible.
The Court observed that the Union itself should have identified these discrepancies before compiling and placing the affidavit on record.
Toilet Cleaners and Children with Special Needs
The petitioner submitted that the compliance affidavit did not disclose the number of toilet cleaners appointed. The Court said it saw “prima facie” logic in this submission. Some States had indicated that schools were managing without dedicated cleaners through internal arrangements, while others had provided no response at all. The Court directed the States and UTs to clarify how they were complying with the direction in Para 173(I) of the main judgment regarding toilet maintenance.
The Court also directed that States and UTs not be lethargic in implementing changes for children with special needs, observing that these children face barriers that go beyond ordinary challenges of schooling.
New Data Collection and Inspection Directions
The Court directed a change in the way data is collected and reported for the next compliance cycle. District Education Officers are to form teams of teachers to conduct surprise inspections across all schools in their jurisdiction, focusing on the directions in Para 173 of the main judgment.
For the next report, States and UTs are directed to frame their responses around gaps rather than achievements. The focus is to be on the number of schools that still lack gender-segregated, functional toilets with usable water connectivity, accessibility, and privacy. States must also identify the cause of each gap and the time required to close it.
The Court also recalled that Para 174 of the main judgment required DEOs to obtain anonymous feedback from students through a tailored survey during periodic inspections. It asked States to place on record the takeaways from DEO inspections already conducted and the student feedback collected in furtherance of that direction. Only 11 States and UTs had reported that DEOs had issued notices and conducted inspections under Section 18 of the RTE Act read with Rule 16(a) of the RTE Rules.
Order
The Court modified the direction in Para 178(II)(i) of the main judgment. The phrase “oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins manufactured in compliance with the ASTM D-6954 standards” is to be read as “biodegradable, biocompatible and compostable sanitary napkins in compliance with ISO 17088 read with IS 5405 standards.” The Court noted that it will be the responsibility of State and UT governments to ensure such napkins are safe and effective to use.
Interim Application I.A. No. 138830 of 2026 was disposed of in those terms. W.P. No. 987 of 2026 was disposed of in terms of the main judgment. The matter was posted for further hearing on 29 September 2026.