RAWALPINDI: The Lahore High Court’s (LHC) Rawalpindi Bench on Wednesday heard a constitutional petition challenging the sales tax on women’s sanitary napkins, with the petitioner arguing the levy treats a basic health necessity as a luxury item and perpetuates gender inequality.

LHC Justice Jawad Hassan took up the petition, filed by Mahnoor Omer, which seeks to exempt sanitary pads and related products from sales tax.

With the court’s approval, the petition also added the Revenue Division via its Secretary as a respondent, arguing that the tax system indirectly discriminates against women and violates constitutional rights to equality and dignity as outlined in Articles 3, 9, 14, 25 and 37.

Advocate Ahsan Jehangir Khan, the petitioner’s counsel, said that only 12pc of menstruating women in Pakistan can afford commercial sanitary pads, forcing the rest to use unsafe alternatives.

Petition argues levy on sanitary napkins violates gender equality rights

He noted that locally manufactured sanitary products have an 18pc sales tax, while imports face a 25pc customs duty on top of sales tax. Even a key raw material, superabsorbent polymer (SAP) pa­­per, is subjected to a 25pc tax, he added.

“By taxing sanitary products, the state is penalising women for a natural biological function,” the counsel argued.

The bench, whoever, questioned the maintainability of the petition in light of the 26th Constitutional Amendment and raised jurisdictional concerns since the respondents, including the Revenue Division, are based in Islamabad. The petitioner’s counsel sought time to address these points.

Barrister Zain Mansoor, Assistant Attorney General, and Barrister Raja Hashim Javed, Assistant Advocate General, appeared on behalf of the federal and provincial governments.

The court issued notices to the federal government and other respondents to submit their replies within two weeks.

A separate notice, under Order XXVII-A of the Civil Procedure Code, was issued to the Attorney General for Pakistan to respond on the constitutional questions involved.

The matter was adjourned, subject to the petitioner addressing the court’s question of maintainability.

Published in Dawn, September 18th, 2025