High Court opens toddy shop jobs to women

The Kerala High Court has declared unconstitutional a rule barring women from employment in toddy shops, holding that concerns about their safety cannot justify a blanket prohibition on their right to work.

Justice P Gopinath struck down Rule 7(37) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, finding that it violated Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which protect equality, prohibit discrimination and safeguard fundamental freedoms and personal liberty.

The judgment, delivered on August 5 and brought into wider public attention this week, arose from a petition by Sophy, a 47-year-old resident of Thrissur district, whose request for employment following her husband’s death was rejected because she was a woman.

The court directed the authorities to reconsider her claim for compassionate appointment without applying the invalidated provision. It also held that conditions incorporated into a toddy shop licence on the basis of the prohibition could no longer stand.

The ruling removes a statutory obstacle that prevented women from being employed in any capacity in licensed toddy shops, whether in sales, administration or other duties. It does not dispense with other applicable licensing requirements or workplace protections.

Sophy’s husband, Kunjipalu, had worked as a manager at a toddy shop in Ponjanam, near Irinjalakuda. Following his death in 2024, she sought employment under arrangements governing the toddy tapping industry, but the licence holder declined her request by invoking the disputed rule.

The petitioner argued that an absolute exclusion based on sex was discriminatory and could not be sustained merely by citing possible hazards at particular workplaces. She also pointed to an earlier High Court decision invalidating a comparable restriction concerning employment in foreign liquor outlets.

The Kerala government defended the provision as a protective measure. Its counsel submitted that toddy shops were frequently situated in remote locations, potentially exposing female employees to exploitation or harassment. The state maintained that the rule was designed to protect their welfare rather than deny opportunities arbitrarily.

Counsel for the toddy shop licensee supported the government’s position, arguing that toddy shops differed from foreign liquor outlets because liquor could be served and sold loose on the premises. Those differences, the licence holder contended, raised particular concerns about working conditions.

The High Court rejected the contention that these considerations warranted excluding every woman from every position. It said the government had an obligation to provide safe working conditions, but that obligation could not be discharged by denying women the opportunity to enter an occupation of their choice.

Drawing on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anuj Garg versus Hotel Association of India, the judge emphasised that protective legislation must not perpetuate assumptions about women’s suitability for particular work. Authorities should address the circumstances that create unequal risks rather than remove women from employment altogether.

The court found no adequate material demonstrating that the blanket restriction was necessary or proportionate. It distinguished decisions involving particular hazardous duties, noting that those cases did not establish grounds for an across-the-board ban on employment in toddy shops.

The government had also invoked the special legal status of the liquor trade, arguing that it was subject to extensive state regulation and could not be treated like ordinary commerce. The court drew a distinction between regulating the sale of liquor and denying otherwise eligible individuals access to employment solely because of their sex.

The judgment also addressed the government’s reliance on earlier judicial decisions permitting restrictions on women performing certain duties, including night watchmen and shore workers.