Summary
Orchestra-bar licence conditions limited stage performers to four women and four men. The Court held that this gender cap rested on stereotypes and unjustifiably restricted performers’ and licence-holders’ occupational freedom. Protective provisions for women could not support measures that curtailed their choices on paternalistic assumptions. The gender restriction was declared void, while the overall ceiling of eight performers remained. The Court left open whether the impugned condition itself qualified as law.
Issues
- Whether the fixed male-female composition was constitutionally permissible.
- Whether women’s protection and public morality justified the gender cap.
- Whether the overall numerical limit also had to be invalidated.
- Whether the Court needed to decide if the licence condition constituted law.
Provisions considered
- Articles 15(1), 15(3) and 19(1)(g), Constitution of IndiaThe gender cap violated equality and occupational freedom and was not saved as a protective measure for women. (¶ 39-49)
Held
- The State failed independently to justify how the gender composition cap regulated the activity. The asserted grounds of protection, exploitation and morality repeated arguments already rejected in the related litigation and reflected stereotypical assumptions about women working in such establishments. (¶ 39-43)
- A protective measure must facilitate women’s safe employment rather than restrict their occupational choice through paternalistic assumptions. Article 15(3) did not justify the impugned exclusionary approach. (¶ 43-46)
- The gender limit directly infringed Article 15(1) and Article 19(1)(g), affecting performers and licence owners. The Court therefore found it unnecessary to decide whether the licence condition was law for constitutional restriction purposes. (¶ 47)
- The overall ceiling of eight performers was retained. Within that limit, an orchestra or band could have any combination of men and women, including an entirely male or entirely female group. The earlier orders concerning stage size and performer numbers had not decided the gender-cap issue. (¶¶ 40, 47-49)
- The High Court judgment was set aside and the gender-cap condition declared void. The appeals were allowed without costs. (¶ 49)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs. Gender composition cap declared void; overall limit of eight performers retained, with any gender combination permitted within that ceiling.