Employment ban in liquor-serving premises struck down for violating equality, autonomy, and livelihood through stereotype-based discrimination.

Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 was analysed under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(g) and 21 in relation to a blanket bar on employing women and men below 25 years in premises where liquor or intoxicating drugs were consumed. The measure was found to rest on outdated sex- and age-based stereotypes, and to fail heightened scrutiny and proportionality because it imposed an invidious and disproportionate restriction on equality, autonomy and livelihood. The Court also held that res extra commercium did not extend to employment in a licensed business, and that parens patriae could not justify a sweeping exclusion that caused constitutional harm. The impugned restriction was therefore held unconstitutional.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, insofar as it prohibited employment of women and men below 25 years in premises where liquor or intoxicating drugs were consumed by the public, violated Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the doctrines of res extra commercium and parens patriae justified the employment restriction as a protective measure.

Issue (i): Whether Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, insofar as it prohibited employment of women and men below 25 years in premises where liquor or intoxicating drugs were consumed by the public, violated Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The restriction was tested against constitutional equality and freedom guarantees in light of changed social conditions. The Court held that classifications based on sex or age must rest on rational criteria and that, in the modern setting, a blanket prohibition on employment in the hospitality sector operated as an invidious form of discrimination. The measure was assessed through proportionality and heightened scrutiny, with emphasis on autonomy, privacy, and the right to be considered for employment as facets of equality and livelihood. The Court found that the law reflected outdated stereotype-based assumptions and had the effect of perpetuating disadvantage rather than protecting women in a constitutionally acceptable manner.

Conclusion: Section 30, to the extent it imposed the impugned employment restrictions, was unconstitutional and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the doctrines of res extra commercium and parens patriae justified the employment restriction as a protective measure.

Analysis: The Court held that the doctrine of res extra commercium could not be extended to regulate the employment of eligible persons in a licensed business, since the question concerned service and employment rights rather than an absolute prohibition on trade in liquor. The asserted parens patriae justification was also held insufficient because protective regulation must be necessary and proportionate, and state protection cannot be used to curtail autonomy by means that themselves inflict constitutional harm. The Court treated the safety rationale as inadequate to validate a sweeping exclusion from employment.

Conclusion: Neither res extra commercium nor parens patriae justified the impugned restriction.

Final Conclusion: The impugned employment ban was held to be an unconstitutional and disproportionate restriction on equality, autonomy, and livelihood, and the challenge to the High Court's view failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Protective legislation that classifies on the basis of sex or age must satisfy heightened scrutiny and proportionality, and a blanket employment prohibition in a regulated industry cannot be sustained merely by invoking public safety, res extra commercium, or paternalistic protection.

---