The Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Wednesday took up a constitutional petition challenging the imposition of sales tax on women’s sanitary napkins. The petitioner argued that treating sanitary products as taxable luxury items undermines women’s health rights and promotes gender inequality.
Justice Jawad Hassan heard the case, which was filed by Mahnoor Omer, seeking exemption of sanitary pads and related products from sales tax. With the court’s permission, the Revenue Division, through its Secretary, was also included as a respondent. The petition contends that the current tax structure indirectly discriminates against women and infringes upon constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity under Articles 3, 9, 14, 25, and 37.
Advocate Ahsan Jehangir Khan, representing the petitioner, highlighted that only about 12 percent of women in Pakistan can afford commercial sanitary products, forcing the vast majority to rely on unsafe substitutes. He further pointed out that locally produced sanitary items carry an 18 percent sales tax, while imports are subject to 25 percent customs duty in addition to sales tax. Even a crucial raw material, superabsorbent polymer (SAP) paper, is taxed at 25 percent.
“By taxing sanitary products, the state is effectively penalizing women for a natural biological process,” he argued.
The bench, however, raised questions regarding the petition’s maintainability, citing the 26th Constitutional Amendment and jurisdictional concerns since several respondents, including the Revenue Division, are based in Islamabad. The petitioner’s counsel requested additional time to address these issues.
Assistant Attorney General Barrister Zain Mansoor and Assistant Advocate General Barrister Raja Hashim Javed represented the federal and provincial governments. The court issued notices to the federal government and other respondents, directing them to file replies within two weeks. A separate notice under Order XXVII-A of the Civil Procedure Code was also issued to the Attorney General of Pakistan to provide input on the constitutional aspects of the case.
The proceedings were adjourned until the petitioner responds to the court’s query on maintainability.