Representational AI-image
Kochi: The high court has struck down Rule 7(37) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, which prohibited the employment of women in toddy shops, ruling that the restriction was unconstitutional and violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Justice P Gopinath declared the rule violative of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality, prohibit discrimination, protect fundamental freedoms and safeguard the right to life and personal liberty. Senior counsel Renjith Thampan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Rule 7(37) initially prohibited women from working in foreign liquor shops as well, but the court had struck down the prohibition insofar as it applied to such shops.
You Can Also Check: Gold Rate in Kochi | Silver Rate in Kochi | Bank Holidays in Kochi | Public Holidays in Kochi Stay updated with the latest Kochi news. The court was considering a petition filed by Sophy, a widow of a toddy shop employee from Thrissur, challenging the govt’s rejection of her claim for compassionate appointment at the toddy shop where her husband had worked. Opposing the petition, the state govt argued that the rule was intended to protect women from exploitation and workplace harassment. The govt pleader submitted that toddy shops were often located in remote areas and that the rule-making authority had a duty to ensure women’s safety and well-being by prohibiting their employment in such establishments. Citing Supreme Court’s decision in the C B Muthamma case, the govt further contended that men and women could not be treated equally in all occupations, as the requirements of particular jobs, gender-related sensitivities, the peculiarities of different social sectors and the limitations faced by either sex could warrant differential treatment. Rejecting the govt’s argument and referring to various Supreme Court judgments, HC observed that instead of banning women from working in toddy shops, the state should address inequalities arising from sex differences and ensure a safe working environment that enables women to choose their workplace and profession. The court noted that while the state was obliged to protect women from harassment and ensure their safety at work, it could not discharge that responsibility by prohibiting them from working in industries of their choice. The bench accordingly allowed the petition and directed the authorities to consider Sophy’s claim for compassionate appointment. Download the TOI App.