HC allows women to work in toddy shops, strikes down blanket ban
The Kerala High Court has struck down a provision prohibiting women from working in toddy shops in the state, holding that the blanket restriction violates their fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination, occupation and life.Justice Gopinath P, in a judgment dated August 5, 2026, declared Rule 7(37) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, unconstitutional, observing that the State cannot cite women's safety as a justification for denying them employment opportunities.The court passed the order while allowing a petition filed by a 47-year-old woman from Irinjalakuda in Thrissur district, whose husband had worked at a toddy shop in Ponjanam.Following her husband's death in 2024, she sought employment at the toddy shop on compassionate grounds, relying on the Kerala Toddy Tapping Industrial Relations Regulation Rules, revised in 2009. However, her request was denied on the basis of Rule 7(37), which prohibits the employment of women in any capacity in toddy shops.Challenging the provision, she approached the High Court, contending that the restriction was unconstitutional and violated Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.The State government defended the provision, arguing that it was introduced to protect women from exploitation and workplace harassment. The government pointed out that toddy shops were often located in remote areas and that the restriction was intended to safeguard women's safety and well-being.It also argued that the Constitution permitted reasonable classification and that men and women could be treated differently in certain occupations depending on the nature and requirements of the work.The counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, the toddy shop licensee, also opposed the petition, pointing to structural differences between toddy shops and foreign liquor outlets. He argued that toddy shops involved the sale of loose liquor and could present problems that did not arise in foreign liquor shops.However, the court rejected these arguments, relying on the Supreme Court's 2008 judgment in Anuj Garg and Others v. Hotel Association of India and Others, which dealt with restrictions on women's employment in establishments serving liquor.The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had emphasised that instead of prohibiting women from working in such establishments, the State should focus on eliminating the unequal consequences of sex differences and ensuring workplace safety.Quoting the Supreme Court judgment, Justice Gopinath P observed:"Instead of prohibiting women employment in the bars altogether the State should focus on factoring in ways through which unequal consequences of sex differences can be eliminated."The Supreme Court had also held that it was the State's responsibility to ensure working conditions that inspire confidence among women to freely pursue their chosen professions.Applying these principles to the case, the Kerala High Court said the prohibition on women's employment in toddy shops could not be justified."In the facts of this case, it is not possible to hold that the impugned Rule is either justified in principle or is proportionate in nature," the court observed.The government had also relied on previous judgments concerning the exclusion of women from certain occupations, including posts such as night watchmen, shed clerks and shore mazdoors. However, the High Court distinguished those cases, observing that they involved specific duties and circumstances that could potentially justify restrictions.It said there was no material to establish that similar considerations applied to employment in toddy shops."While it is suggested that the impugned Rule was incorporated keeping in mind the safety of women, there is no material to suggest that the considerations which weighed with the Court while deciding those cases apply to the facts of this case also," the judgment said.The court also rejected the government's argument that the liquor trade was res extra commercium, a legal doctrine referring to activities outside the protection of ordinary commercial rights, and that women could not claim a fundamental right to employment in the sector.Referring again to the Supreme Court's ruling in Anuj Garg, the court said the State could regulate the liquor trade but could not extend such regulation to deny eligible people employment opportunities.It further observed that the State's responsibility to protect women from harassment and provide them with safe working environments could not be discharged by excluding them from entire industries."Such a responsibility on the State machinery cannot be achieved by prohibiting women from working in whatever industry they choose to work," the court said.Holding that Rule 7(37) violated Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, the High Court declared the provision unconstitutional. It also held that any condition imposed on toddy shop licences based on the impugned rule could no longer be sustained.
THE Kerala High Court has struck down a provision prohibiting women from working in toddy shops in the state, holding that the blanket restriction violates their fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination, occupation and life.
Justice Gopinath P, in a judgment dated August 5, 2026, declared Rule 7(37) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, unconstitutional, observing that the State cannot cite women's safety as a justification for denying them employment opportunities.
The court passed the order while allowing a petition filed by a 47-year-old woman from Irinjalakuda in Thrissur district, whose husband had worked at a toddy shop in Ponjanam.
Following her husband's death in 2024, she sought employment at the toddy shop on compassionate grounds, relying on the Kerala Toddy Tapping Industrial Relations Regulation Rules, revised in 2009. However, her request was denied on the basis of Rule 7(37), which prohibits the employment of women in any capacity in toddy shops.
Challenging the provision, she approached the High Court, contending that the restriction was unconstitutional and violated Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.
The State government defended the provision, arguing that it was introduced to protect women from exploitation and workplace harassment. The government pointed out that toddy shops were often located in remote areas and that the restriction was intended to safeguard women's safety and well-being.
It also argued that the Constitution permitted reasonable classification and that men and women could be treated differently in certain occupations depending on the nature and requirements of the work.
The counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, the toddy shop licensee, also opposed the petition, pointing to structural differences between toddy shops and foreign liquor outlets. He argued that toddy shops involved the sale of loose liquor and could present problems that did not arise in foreign liquor shops.
However, the court rejected these arguments, relying on the Supreme Court's 2008 judgment in Anuj Garg and Others v. Hotel Association of India and Others, which dealt with restrictions on women's employment in establishments serving liquor.
The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had emphasised that instead of prohibiting women from working in such establishments, the State should focus on eliminating the unequal consequences of sex differences and ensuring workplace safety.
Quoting the Supreme Court judgment, Justice Gopinath P observed:
"Instead of prohibiting women employment in the bars altogether the State should focus on factoring in ways through which unequal consequences of sex differences can be eliminated."
The Supreme Court had also held that it was the State's responsibility to ensure working conditions that inspire confidence among women to freely pursue their chosen professions.
Applying these principles to the case, the Kerala High Court said the prohibition on women's employment in toddy shops could not be justified.
"In the facts of this case, it is not possible to hold that the impugned Rule is either justified in principle or is proportionate in nature," the court observed.
The government had also relied on previous judgments concerning the exclusion of women from certain occupations, including posts such as night watchmen, shed clerks and shore mazdoors. However, the High Court distinguished those cases, observing that they involved specific duties and circumstances that could potentially justify restrictions.
It said there was no material to establish that similar considerations applied to employment in toddy shops.
"While it is suggested that the impugned Rule was incorporated keeping in mind the safety of women, there is no material to suggest that the considerations which weighed with the Court while deciding those cases apply to the facts of this case also," the judgment said.
The court also rejected the government's argument that the liquor trade was res extra commercium, a legal doctrine referring to activities outside the protection of ordinary commercial rights, and that women could not claim a fundamental right to employment in the sector.
Referring again to the Supreme Court's ruling in Anuj Garg, the court said the State could regulate the liquor trade but could not extend such regulation to deny eligible people employment opportunities.
It further observed that the State's responsibility to protect women from harassment and provide them with safe working environments could not be discharged by excluding them from entire industries.
"Such a responsibility on the State machinery cannot be achieved by prohibiting women from working in whatever industry they choose to work," the court said.
Holding that Rule 7(37) violated Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, the High Court declared the provision unconstitutional. It also held that any condition imposed on toddy shop licences based on the impugned rule could no longer be sustained.
