The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Centre, Delhi Government, Hotel Association of India and six others on a petition challenging a Delhi high court order allowing women to serve liquor at pubs and bars in the national capital.
The notices were issued by a Bench of Justice S B Sinha and Justice Dalveer Bhandari on a special leave petition filed by one Anuj Garg and four others against the January 12, 2006, order of the high court, which had said there can be no restriction on women working in establishments serving liquor and other intoxicating substances.
A Division Bench of the high court had declared as 'unconstitutional and inoperative,' Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, to the extent that it imposes restrictions upon the employment of women in any part of the licensed premises in which liquor or intoxicating drugs are consumed by the public.
However, the petitioners contended that the right to serve liquor was not a fundamental right and that the high court was not justified in ignoring the social conditions prevalent in Delhi. They also pointed out that Delhi was being termed as a 'rogue city' because of high rate of crime against women.
The petitioners submitted that the high court was not justified in commenting that 'female touch lends grace and elegance to the hospitality industry.'
The court order having far reaching implications for the bourgeoning hospitality industry had come on a petition by HAI and four others, including two women employees of the industry, challenging the restrictions on the fair sex to serve liquor to customers.
It had, however, clarified that though the order permitted women to be employed for the purpose of serving liquor, they cannot at the same time be compelled to do the task against their consent.
The HAI had contended before the high court that the impugned provision was violative of Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Right against Discrimination on the basis of Sex) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which gave every individual the right to choose his/her profession of choice.
It had questioned the rationale of the authorities in restricting women from serving liquor as the government itself in recent times had been encouraging their sale by various measures, which included ensuring their availability in various general stores too.
The Centre had, however, justified the provision stating that the same had been imposed keeping in mind the morality and protection of women against exploitation. But the high court had disagreed with the view and held that the said provision was outdated in the present day world as 'far from serving the cause of protecting women, it has in fact the effect of inhibiting and curbing the employment opportunities of modern Indian women.'
It had concurred with the HAI that the Government, far from banning liquor trade as envisaged under Article 47, had been consistently encouraging the same by enhancing the trading hours of liquor shops and carrying out advertisements at considerable public expense to promote its sale.
If the restrictions were to be continued, the result would be that women will not be eligible for employment in a large segment of hotel business covered by room service, restaurants, bars and banquets, the high court had pointed out.