2007 (12) TMI 448 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court deems age and gender restrictions in Punjab Excise Act unconstitutional, emphasizing gender equality and employment rights.

ANUJ GARG & ORS Versus HOTEL ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court, finding the restrictions imposed by Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, prohibiting ... Whether Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 prohibiting employment of 'any man under the age of 25 years' or 'any woman' in any part of such premises in which liquor or intoxicating drug is consumed by the public is constitutionally valid? Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914.2. Prohibition of employment of any man under the age of 25 years.3. Prohibition of employment of any woman in premises where liquor is consumed.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional Validity of Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914:The Supreme Court was tasked with examining the constitutional validity of Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, which prohibits the employment of 'any man under the age of 25 years' or 'any woman' in premises where liquor or intoxicating drugs are consumed by the public. This provision was challenged as being ultra vires Articles 19(1)(g), 14, and 15 of the Constitution of India. The High Court of Delhi had previously declared this provision ultra vires to the extent it prohibits the employment of any woman in such premises. The National Capital Territory of Delhi accepted this judgment but supported the statutory provision without filing a Special Leave Petition.2. Prohibition of Employment of Any Man Under the Age of 25 Years:The Supreme Court noted that the prohibition on the employment of men under the age of 25 years was challenged by the Hotel Association of India. The Court emphasized that young men who obtain degrees or diplomas in Hotel Management typically enter the workforce at the age of 22 or 23 years. The restriction on their employment was deemed unjust, as it deprived a significant section of young graduates of their right to employment. The Court held that this restriction did not stand judicial scrutiny, considering a citizen's right to be considered for employment, which is a facet of the right to livelihood.3. Prohibition of Employment of Any Woman in Premises Where Liquor is Consumed:The Court analyzed the prohibition on the employment of women in premises where liquor is consumed, emphasizing the changes in societal conditions and the role of women in the workforce. The Court noted that the concept of equality between the sexes was unknown when the original Act was enacted. However, the makers of the Constitution intended to apply equality among men and women in all spheres of life, as reflected in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The Court highlighted the importance of international treaties and conventions, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), in construing domestic laws.The Court referred to various judgments that recognized the rights of women and emphasized the need for gender equality. It noted that the hospitality industry has grown significantly, and the prohibition on the employment of women in any part of the premises where liquor is served was overly broad. The Court observed that this restriction would prevent women from working in various roles, including housekeeping, where they may need to enter rooms where liquor is served. The Court held that the prohibition was based on outdated societal conditions and did not align with the current realities of women's participation in public life and employment.Parens Patriae Power of State:The Court addressed the justification of Section 30 of the Act based on the parens patriae power of the state, which refers to the state's role as a guardian for those who are unable to care for themselves. The Court emphasized that the use of parens patriae power is subject to judicial scrutiny and must be objectively grounded. The Court noted that young men and women are capable of making informed decisions about their employment and should be allowed to live their lives on their own terms, subject to constitutional, statutory, and social interdicts.Right to Employment vis-a-vis Security:The Court acknowledged the tension between the right to employment and security concerns. It emphasized that measures to safeguard autonomy should not be so restrictive that they undermine the essence of the guarantee. The Court noted that instead of curbing women's freedom, empowerment and appropriate law enforcement strategies should be adopted to ensure their safety. The Court highlighted the importance of gender equality and the need for proportional measures to achieve legitimate aims.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court, finding no infirmity in its judgment. The Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal filed by the respondents, concluding that the restrictions imposed by Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, were unconstitutional and did not withstand judicial scrutiny. The Court emphasized the importance of gender equality, the right to employment, and the need for proportional measures to ensure safety and autonomy.