Kochi: The Kerala High Court has struck down a rule prohibiting the employment of women in any capacity in toddy shops, declaring the restriction unconstitutional. The court observed that while the government has a responsibility to protect women from exploitation and workplace harassment, it cannot prevent them from working in an industry or profession of their choice in the name of ensuring their safety. The verdict came on a petition filed by Sophy, a 47-year-old woman from Thrissur, who challenged the denial of compassionate employment at a toddy shop following the death of her husband, who had worked there.
The court declared Rule 7(37) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, unconstitutional. The provision prohibited the employment of women in toddy shops in any capacity. The High Court emphasised that ensuring a safe working environment for women is the state’s responsibility, but imposing a blanket ban on their employment cannot be considered an appropriate way to fulfil that obligation.
Woman Denied Job After Husband’s Death
Sophy’s husband was employed at a toddy shop and died in 2024. Following his death, she sought compassionate appointment at the establishment but was denied employment under Rule 7(37). She subsequently approached the High Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the provision.
Senior Advocate Ranjith Thampan, appearing for the petitioner, argued that Sophy had been denied employment solely because the rule prohibited women from working in toddy shops. He challenged the restriction as unreasonable and sought its removal, contending that the provision unfairly deprived women of employment opportunities.
During the hearing, the government pleader submitted that the rule had been introduced to protect women from exploitation and all forms of workplace harassment. The government’s position was that the restriction was intended to safeguard women from potentially unsafe working conditions.
However, the court did not accept this argument as sufficient justification for imposing a complete prohibition on women’s employment in toddy shops. Considering the facts of the case, the High Court observed that it was not possible to conclude that the rule was justified in principle or proportionate in nature.
Safety Cannot Be Used to Deny Employment
The High Court held that the government has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that women can work in an environment free from harassment and other forms of exploitation. However, preventing women from entering an entire industry does not fulfil this obligation.
Instead, the state must create conditions that enable women to feel safe and confident while pursuing their chosen professions. The court stressed that protecting women should involve improving workplace safety rather than restricting their access to employment.
Referring to a Supreme Court ruling, the High Court observed that the government should focus on eliminating the unequal consequences arising from differences based on sex. Rather than imposing broad restrictions on women’s employment, the state should address the underlying inequalities and ensure that women have equal opportunities to work.
The court further emphasised that appropriate safeguards must be established to enable women to choose their professions without fear. A blanket prohibition on women’s entry into an entire industry cannot be justified merely by citing the possibility of exploitation or harassment.
The ruling reinforces the principle that workplace safety and equal employment opportunities must be pursued together. Instead of excluding women from particular occupations, the government must ensure that working conditions are safe and that appropriate measures are in place to prevent harassment.
Similar Ban on Foreign Liquor Shops Had Already Been Struck Down
During the proceedings, it also emerged that the rules had initially prohibited women from being employed in foreign liquor shops. The High Court had previously struck down the restriction insofar as it applied to foreign liquor shops.
In the present case, the court examined the constitutional validity of the prohibition on employing women in toddy shops and ruled against the restriction.
The judgment brings renewed attention to the relationship between women’s right to employment and the government’s responsibility to ensure workplace safety. The court’s observations make clear that protective measures should not become barriers preventing women from accessing employment opportunities.
With the ruling on Sophy’s petition, the blanket prohibition on employing women in toddy shops under Rule 7(37) has been struck down. The court underscored that women must be allowed to choose their professions freely and that the state must create a safe working environment where they can work without discrimination.
