The Court ruled that protecting women from workplace harassment cannot mean shutting them out of professions they choose to pursue.
The Kerala High Court has struck down a state rule barring women from working in toddy shops, declaring the restriction unconstitutional and contrary to fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
In Sophy v. State of Kerala & Ors., Justice Gopinath P held that the government cannot use women’s safety as a justification for denying them employment across an entire industry. Instead, the State must ensure that workplaces are safe and that women can pursue jobs without facing discrimination.
The Court made it clear that protection must come through measures that address workplace risks, not through restrictions that take away women’s choices.
A blanket prohibition, it observed, cannot be a substitute for the State’s duty to prevent harassment and create conditions in which women can work safely.
A widow’s request leads to a constitutional challenge
The case arose after Sophy sought a job at a toddy shop in Ponjanam, Thrissur, where her husband, KJ Kunjupalu, had worked before his death on May 20, 2024.
She applied for employment on compassionate grounds but was turned down because Rule 7(37) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, prohibited women from being employed in toddy shops in any capacity.
Sophy then challenged the rule before the High Court, arguing that the restriction could not stand in light of constitutional protections and earlier judicial decisions on women’s right to work.
Her petition relied on the Kerala High Court’s 2017 decision in Sanuja and Others v. Kerala State Beverages Corporation Ltd. and Others, which struck down a similar restriction on women’s employment in foreign liquor shops.
She also cited the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in Anuj Garg and Others v. Hotel Association of India and Others. That judgment emphasised that the State must address safety concerns without excluding women from employment opportunities simply because of their sex.
State’s safety argument rejected
The Kerala government defended the restriction by pointing to the conditions in which toddy shops typically operate. It argued that these establishments may be located in remote areas and differ structurally from foreign liquor outlets, raising concerns about women’s safety and well-being.
The State also contended that liquor-related activities fall outside ordinary commercial activity and that the petitioner could not claim a fundamental right to employment in the industry.
The Court was not persuaded.
It held that concerns about safety did not justify a blanket ban and that the restriction was neither justified nor proportionate to its stated objective. The nature of the industry, it clarified, could not by itself be used to deny otherwise eligible individuals the opportunity to work there.
Drawing on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court said the government should focus on removing the disadvantages women face and establishing safe working conditions that allow them to choose their own professions.
The central issue, therefore, was not whether workplace safety mattered, but whether denying women access to an entire category of employment was a constitutionally acceptable way to achieve it.
Rule declared unconstitutional
The High Court declared Rule 7(37) of the 2002 Rules unconstitutional, finding it violative of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
These provisions protect equality before the law, prohibit discrimination on grounds including sex, safeguard specified freedoms including the right to practise a profession or occupation, and guarantee the right to life and personal liberty.
The Court further held that any condition imposed on toddy shop licence holders on the basis of the invalidated provision could not survive.
It consequently directed the authorities to consider Sophy’s claim for compassionate employment.
The ruling removes a legal barrier that had categorically excluded women from working in toddy shops. Its broader message is equally significant: the responsibility to protect women at work rests with the State, and that responsibility cannot be discharged by denying women the freedom to choose their livelihoods.