The fact that the right to menstrual health now has a constitutional footing by being brought under the umbrella of Article 21 (the right to life) is revolutionary under Indian constitutional law. In the case of Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India & Ors., the Supreme Court addressed menstrual health in the wider context of health, dignity, equality, and access to education and commanded the State to adopt measures for better menstrual hygiene management in educational institutions. In light of the judgment, this paper explores whether the judgment reflects an elaboration of an already existent constitutional right or an extension to the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Using doctrinal as well as comparative research methodology, the paper undertakes analysis of the legal provisions regulating menstrual health and the evolution of the right to health under Article 21 and reviews critically the Court’s judicial approach and argumentation. In addition to analyzing the linkage between Article 21 A (right to education) and menstrual health, the paper sheds light on the problems that poor sanitation for menstrual hygiene causes with regard to educational institutions and the resultant impact on gender equity. The paper endeavors to highlight the emergent understanding of dignified health that the implementation of menstrual leave and menstrual friendly facilities in public institutions displays. Drawing lessons from comparable countries such as Scotland, Kenya, New Zealand and England, the paper points out certain practices which could fortify the legal framework in India. The paper will establish that while the foundation for menstruation was already present in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, it was the judgment which provided clarity regarding the obligations of the State, paving the way for realizing the right to dignified health.