Incident at MDU campus

On 26 October 2025, during a visit by the state governor, the three women sanitation workers arrived late at their duty on the university campus. When questioned for the delay, they explained it was due to “women’s illness” — a euphemism for menstrual discomfort.

Rather than accept the explanation, their supervisors — identified as Vinod Kumar and Vitender Kumar — reportedly denied the claim and demanded proof of menstruation. One woman was asked to remove her clothes; another was ordered to have her sanitary pad checked by a colleague; photographs of the pads were allegedly taken.

Shame, dignity and systemic failure

The request to produce physical proof of menstruation at a workplace constitutes an extreme violation of dignity and privacy. This is not simply misconduct — it reflects deep-seated gender bias, ignorance and the refusal of an institution to treat a biological function as legitimate. Feminine health and menstrual needs are treated as shameful rather than normal.

As the chairperson of the Haryana State Women’s Commission remarked: “There can be nothing more outrageous than asking a woman to prove her menstrual cycle.”

Response from the university and authorities

In response to the allegations, MDU’s administration moved quickly: both supervisors were suspended, and a criminal investigation was initiated, with the accused asked not to leave Rohtak.   The complaint has been forwarded to police and an internal committee formed. The Women’s Commission has taken suo motu cognisance and demanded a report within five days.

Why this matters

• Workplace dignity: All employees have the right to respect and privacy—not to be humiliated for bodily functions.

• Gender-equity and sensitivity: The incident highlights how menstruation remains taboo, and how power imbalances exploit that taboo.

• Institutional accountability: A university is expected to uphold higher standards — for it to be the site of such an incident undercuts the very idea of educational institutions as safe spaces.

• Broader cultural implications: The act signals how menstruation is treated as suspicion, shame or defiance rather than a natural process deserving empathy and accommodation.

Moving forward

To rebuild trust and remedy the situation, the university and relevant authorities must ensure:

• Transparent investigation with victims’ safety prioritized.

• Discipline and consequences for those found guilty.

• Sensitisation training for all staff regarding gender, dignity, menstruation and workplace rights.

• Clear policies for menstrual leave or support without stigma.

Such steps are essential not just to right the wrong in this case, but to send a message that menstrual dignity is non-negotiable.

This incident at MDU is a sobering reminder that even today, in workplaces and education centres, natural processes are weaponised and used to degrade. The outrage must translate into meaningful change — for the sake of these women, and for every woman whose basic rights are still contested in silence.