GENDER, AUTONOMY, AND THE CONSTITUTION: A CASE COMMENTARY ON ANUJ GARG V. HOTEL ASSOCIATION OF INDIA

The relationship between protective legislation and substantive equality has long troubled Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Laws enacted with an ostensibly benevolent purpose — to “protect” women from workplace hazards — have historically operated to exclude them from public life altogether. Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India represents one of the most significant judicial interventions on this question. Decided by a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on 6 December 2007, the case tested the constitutionality of Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, a colonial-era provision barring the employment of women, and of men below twenty-five years, on premises where liquor or intoxicating drugs are consumed by the public. In striking down the provision, the Court moved decisively away from a formalistic reading of equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, towards a substantive, autonomy-centred approach that continues to influence anti-discrimination adjudication in India.