Menstrual hygiene products are an inescapable biological necessity for over 100 million women and girls in Pakistan. Yet under the Sales Tax Act 1990, locally manufactured sanitary pads attract an 18 per cent general sales tax while imported products and raw materials face a 25 per cent customs duty, producing a combined tax burden of approximately 40 per cent at the retail level. This article undertakes a doctrinal legal analysis of whether this taxation regime is constitutionally sustainable. It argues that the classification of menstrual products as non-essential luxury goods under the Act constitutes indirect gender-based discrimination that violates Articles 9, 14, and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Drawing on landmark Pakistani superior court jurisprudence most notably Shehla Zia v WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693 and on the comparative constitutional experiences of Colombia and Nepal, the article demonstrates that the period tax fails the reasonable classification test under Article 25(2) and imposes an unconstitutional burden on the right to life and dignity under Articles 9 and 14. The article further examines the two pending High Court petitions (Lahore High Court WP 2700/2025 and the Sindh High Court proceeding), the recent Balochistan Assembly resolution, and Pakistan's obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. It identifies a significant gap in existing Pakistani legal scholarship and concludes with legislative and judicial reform recommendations.
Iqbal Fahad (Sun,) studied this question.