Sri C Ramesh S/O Chikkanna Gowda vs State Of Karnataka By Its Chief ... on 24 September, 2008

[Cites 18, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri C Ramesh S/O Chikkanna Gowda vs State Of Karnataka By Its Chief ... on 24 September, 2008

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar

----
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

-uwcl uuunl  HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF

_- ..- --as

Q

 THE HIGH counr or 
AT BANGAL0REj.::__ «   

Dated this the 24th d£;yA»of'Sepfié1iii>¢i:ﬁ   
THE Horrnu: HR JUs_jI1c£~p'v  

Writ Petition No. V3133 of 2003 JEXCISE)
Writ Pe éiticn. 1lTp.S§345«.of'.2@}Q8 /EXCISE)

1. SR1-;..VC;-RAVME-3_Hw  ~  
 " CS,'-QACHIKi§ANNA» (3owD'A;" '
 AGED A3001' 42 'Y.E_ARs.
 PRO'PRIET'OR.=_  " __
' *CH'EF-IHN 'REGENCY "
PREMIER' BAR an RESTAURANT,
_ _ NO.?1,_RING* ROAD',
HADOMLU-R,

 ;b_..CBANGALOR'E'*~'560 071.

. ~  Ms'.«-.Eu--zABETH,
'  D/O KHMMIMLAN,
AGEDJABOUT 20 YEARS,
.-'r£O$TESS,
 R/0 DOOR NO. 13,
" _ FSAZAR STREET,
'"VANNARPE'I',
BANGALORE.

 3." MS. LYA SHOHTHONG NEITHIEM

D/O NEITHIEM,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
HOSTESS,

R/O DOOR NO. 13,

%/



 

.. .r...--..u-. . nun'! -..uu:u "l;JA*l'«#__:\AKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

BAZAR STREET,

VANNARPET,   5 ._ ' 
BANGALORE.   i?ET¥"FIQNE--RS

[By Sri. N. Devhadasg, >Sr.  '
Sri. K.S. Anusuiya Devi__AElv. gf0!."V "  V .
M/3. Nyayamitra '!_V\dw7cant.es,'=Advs{} "  

MUD:

1. STATE OF' KARNATAKA  *   -- 
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY  
VIYJHANA SOUDH.A, " '  E' 
me. AMBEDKARROAD, 2;-

BANGALORE-1. E '  

2. THE EXCiSE c=;§r&M:Es1¢NfER, 7  V'
VOKKALEGAPA 'EH;w'ANA,.V_  "V 
K._R: CIRCLE {mason ::1EcLE;.,

Ei;NG5'L0RE--«~.  . E RESPONDENTS

'(By Ad§£§éaté General} THIS PE'_I'moE is P'iLED..U'ﬂDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF' THE coNs'n'm':'-rxom OF..IN'S'm, PRAYING TO DECLARE RULE 9(1) 0? KARNATAKA EXCISE ~(GENE.RAL CONDITIONS) RULES, 1967 FRAMED UNDER "KARNA'I'AKA EXCISE ACT, 1965 --- PROHIBI'iT}!*§G EMPLOYNIENT OF WOMEN AS UNCONSTITUTEONAL 14»; so FAR--.Asi..PETiT10NEE ARE CONCERNED AND ETc., In (mxcnsz;

._.,,7L .§ ET ._ ' 3 MS 1% RGOEEE AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, ,, #4'6,_EVERGREEN STREET, * UDAYANAGAR, BANGALORE --- 560 016.

_ -»Ms M LAXMI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O #45, em CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 005.

:3 O u :1: Q I S E 2 M § II.

o '52 3 o u 1:

9 :1: 5

E < 2 M § IL.

E :3 o u :1: Q 3 § *3 2 M 5 IL.

'£ :3 o u I.' Q ::

S '-E 2 V. 5 .

3-: *- ».

R-.

0* ,_ SE :3 O o :

Q :

E 2 M 5 LI-

.5' Q 2 16 17 18 5 SHASHWATHI ENTERPRISES, 1/3, SUJATHA COMPLEX, 1 MAIN, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE.

SHRI MUDDEGOWDA ' AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, THROUGH ITS POWER OF' ATTORNEY HOLDER, SHRI G.R. RAJASHEKEAR, SHRUNGAR BAR "

No.59; 1, SUBEDAR C}iATfRAIvI»ROAD, ~ _ BANGALORE. A ' SHRI LALJI SINGH .%rHA:<:uR AGED ABOUT 5o.¥,EARS._ M/S r§Iz:;mf;.ojvERS,~ _ A -

No.53/1gj,GUPPA TOWERS,_ "V REsiEEN~.mi.R'oAp," .

BANCEALQRE; » ,-

'SHR: RERERERA BASH"

AGES A::;o.LfRas«.1?EA_Rs,.

"AMANA'S:NS,'EARTNER. _.

XSTACY PU}-385 RESTAURANT, 1 FLOOR 3:204, A ' ~ A. NARASIMIRA' RA-aA"RoAD, » V NEAR TO*J{N__}f§ALL BANGALORE. A 1-A9;

SHRIKR MANOI-{AR E. fAVGE:3..,A13.,oUT 52 YEARS "PA~RjTi\lER, MI'Si_Bi'9IGADE GARDENS g'I'HROUGH GPA HOLDER, SHRI MUNEREDDY " $10.48/2,2ND FLOOR BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE SHRI V SAMPATH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PROPRIETOR.

M/S CHANDINI BAR AND RESTAURANT, NO256, S.C.ROAD, NEAR KAPALI THEATER, 21 GANE) I-IINAGAR, BANGALORE.

M s JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PROPRIEETOR, 1 FOUR CENTS EN'I'ER?RISES, No.47, BALAJI PLAZA, LALBAGH MAIN ROAI3', OPP. IV?!' = BANGALORE. " " .

"«:..;""*2;T§TIoNER's I33! Sn'. §J_..I.<[u.:'Ramgsh, Aav;§_ STATE OF KARNATAKA'--. . '-

THRQuc3H..cH1;§:F SE§3RE'1'APY, ' ' GoV:¢:R1s€M-e:rrr'0FixARNA':fAKA,---~-

VI:DiiANA-._SOUD_I}{A; » D1?2.AkyiBEDKAR<RQM);..,: 1 %3mr..3ALe.;§g « ,5eo '00 1 THEO OF' 'KARNAT;1KA _ 'BY ITS .PR«!fNACP;%LO'SnE'CRETARY TO <:;ov%ERreM;:N~*zf._ « DERARTMEITP cm HOME, VZDHANA-SOUDI-iA, N O'*BANGA'LOR_E___j.560 001. _ v'I.'H4E'COMMISSIONER OF' POLECE _ ,_§3£;NCgAL;ORE CITY', If'€.FANV'"E'RY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

ATHE EXCISE COMMISSIONER " 'VOKKALJGARA BHAVAN, K..R.CIRCLE, (HUDSON CIRCLE} BANGALORE - 560 001.

'THE EDEPIITY COMMISSIONER OF POLECE (ADMINIS'I'RA'I'ION} DESIGNATED AUTHORITY OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF' POIJCE, unsur-

8

2. It is the version of the first the petitioner is desirous of employing women' as-hostesfisivfor providing better faciliﬁes to the' 'ct1stomers:"fr'_r_V that the facilities provided at Ahisihotei to international standards to the second and the thini apyipiiediywior the job of hostess in the first so that they can function as the hotel including the barii the first petitioner being suitability for the job is desirous" of to the second and the third petitioners in _ restaurant, but in View of the . ......... iA._.~_,.A......»....nm ruui-I Luuxi or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT os KARNATAKA +3'i%"H COURT of Section 20 of the Act read with Excise Licences (General "trCV',oi3ditioti's) Ai1967 [for short, the Rules], as the first 4' so employ the second and the third without obtaining a permission from the Commissioner in Writing in terms of sub-section of Section 20 of the Act, but the so--caIled permission $3/t Seciivn é*é3,.f2;of 1 .....r...--..u-. .m.:n -..uuua.AbtA»AiIir«.4|__§AKNAI'A!(A HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 9 having become an illusion, as Ruie 9 of utotaily prohibits employment of women by a of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the together to ﬁle this J these statutory provisions, "' >

3. The pmvisioi1s.V:of.»»the Act and the Rule 9 of the Rules Vrea<1.as'».L1j1<ie1f;."-,__ hi V H ofhheihﬂgzloyment of children a ' . ----~ (1) No person who is iioer.sed*.___"to seli any intoxicant for " .ooi1sumpii_on on his premises shall, during " in which such premises are kept open____for persons, employ or permit to be employed, either with or without a " remuneration, any children under such

-age as the State Government may, by rule, fprescribe in this behagfj in any part of " such premises in which such exoisable article is consumed by the public. (2) No person who is licensed to sell any intoxicant for consumption at his premises shall, without the previous permission in writing of the Deputy Commissioner; during the hours in which such premises are kept open for pe1sons, rum ur nan-KNAIAKA HIGH COURT '! (:ARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEGH COURT OFKARNATAKA I-HGH COURT 10 employ or permit to be enzployeeﬂ' with or without remuneration, % in any part of such premises" "

such excisable article is oona':Lrtze;i'~byAthe' «. V {3} Every grciated 2 ziocief' sub-section ﬁ'2)=-shall be 2ndorSed.t_Von..3 the , > licence and be~._ and withdrawn ' F Rule 9 ofthe % e "

9. Eiwzplogitueﬂilf off. Certain o'a':J;Ver's V. (1) The licensee V not enaploy women;

.... :;:,-- to any person who tttoebea?io'==°"vi¢'ed-

% (3) shall not employ, in any a person who is below the V of' 18 years or a person who is suﬁeﬁngﬁom any contagious disease. I and the third petitioners, who are f;ers.;;:I1sA':""o.spix'ing for the job of hostess in the first to .epetitioner's hotel, are aggrieved that their job opportunity is" lost due to the provisions of the Act and the Rules 'T referred to above. In such circumstances, the petitioners have joined together to challenge the legality of the %/to

---wuuu V';

uunnivmtnnﬂ s-nun LUUKI .'btA,?!?*«.t§ARNATAi(.A HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA I-NGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 11 provisions contending that a provision of th:is"L:nature is unconstitutional, is violative of Articles 1 V' 1 and 39 of the Constitution gof"£'11d.ita,.' '._pfovEsionsC fof Articsle 21 of the Constitution'.of.India.'Vivs'inVoked.:Vi11,theC context of affectatjon by tni:st.pm§isio11~.o}a secondand the third petitioners..,_'_

5. It is 1fersi.on':ef that having regard to the social norms, trends having expanded and ha{?ing-- "restriction of the nature sought to of subsection (2) of Section 20 of and"-R_L:Iev 9 of the Rules, are totally outdated, ' not ﬁt into the modern thinking and outlook '' . of A emancipation of women and Weaker of society, but more importantly violates the " jfundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution in terms ofArtic:Ies 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, occunirlg in Part-31 and so also Articie 39 of the RT """" "" ""'"'""'"""'" ""'-"" F-UURT ()F.i(ARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU 12 Constitution of India in I-"art--iV; that the Court While examin1n' g a challenge of the a'!i_ke iegsiation, in the ease of ASSOCMHON or INDIA 66§&°;titoi nav:% 'ng.i J declared an identical 3 of V the Punjab Excise, 19 14, A'[P1i:tij'é1't.;iVe.)$4.tfVVt"' --1 of i1*i914]t }[for short, the Punjab Act], as vi:,.1aa¢g 14 and 16 of the Constitution: tsituation is squarely covered. the Supreme Court in that sought for in this writ and the statutory provisions of sue-eeeti0n"{2).'"'of 20 of the Act should be declared . " _ Iiiieoixsﬁtutional and unenforceable. " . .61 V had been admitted for examination by iesueg of Rule. Respondents -- state and the excise " _ Vieemmissioner --- had been put on notice and they have entered appearance through the learned government advocate. Statement of objections and additional

-- --.-.... was av-1.1 ..n..-mm mun LUUKi.'ﬂ)r«#AKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNAYAKA HIGH COURY OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 13 statement of objections have been ﬁled onnuof the respondents. The factual averments are denied. It is averted tlfpat' th.ep_ petitioners are persons who petitioner and Without put forward by the urged that the challenge to the of and the rule is Without omy meant to protect the to the contrary; that a ' of the Rules has no on trade or business in vending liquor not employing women in a licenced place ., is licence and that cannot be questioned Articles 14, I9 and 21 of the Constitution of lI'ndi:::;' it the licencee in the first instance has 119 .. fundeniental right at all to carry on business in liquor; it "tilet the prohibition of employment of Women in a place 'i where liquor is served like the licenced place in terms of (IL-9 licence, is a reasonable restriction imposed with the ......u \I! nnmvuv-u:-ma nib?! LUUR¥Ab(t2!"i§ARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 18 permission is to be obtained before employirzgsioﬁtten in a licenced place, the rule having totaiiy to do so, the authority is riot ailotirecii 'freedom' nor discretion to permit or not toitipeimiit anVd_Lthere1'orei:Vit.VVis ai total prohibition of emploﬁinent of a licenced premises and is AI'i:ic1es I4 and 15 of the Constitution of Ind?'-i

11. It___is section is also had in law for wan.ti.of hgigideiilnes es---t.o_ what circumstance the permission' and in what circumstance permission the rule having allowed no vdiscretiore, the U becomes bad, as the the section is only for total prohibition tfxefeioxve. faihng it as a reasonabie restriction. Atizenﬁoiti is drawn to the judgment of the Supreme :the case of ANUJ GARG [supra], particularly p-e.i'agi'aphs 25, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and _ . .... .... -av 19

13. It is also submitted that the pmvisiof:-snot one which can be saved in terms of agluae Constitution of India for the -reason provision for women is oniy at possible act of in O1 5(1)'V and not to enable theﬁtate tile ntbﬁsions of Article 15(1) against womeiﬁ by eejie1it.ei;+e.1mder Article 15(3). In support .. is placed on the decision O *~.} C0.;;m in the case of c as me); or sm [ (1 996{ 3 sec 525}.

..n...~. . nvri s..uu:u .t\.AKNAFAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT A_ also seek support for the coiitentienj ~ statutory provisions are clearly of and 15 of the Constitution of India .V:"_'~_:«b}f"appIyii1gvtigehtwesent norms in the society, by referring V R written by Dr Justice Jitendra N Bhat of it Court, titled Gender Jizstice: Human Rights 'O Triumph or Turmoil: Victor or Jun: ur I\l~\KNJ-\!AiU\ riitiﬁ COURIjbOtF'.i;(ARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA I-HGH (SOUR? 22 the petitioners have no right to trade in 1iqt1oI§;"is"--oIﬂy to avoid the question and not to answer this C2186 .

18. On the other hand,' on state, Sri Udaya Holla, learned sought to defend the vaIiditf«--..xV'c}f_ 'the by urging that no person has 'a. "ti~ade in liquor and such as settled by the rulings Benches of the Supreme r 'O examining the validity of the provisions " Jand the Rules, which are only in'-the__context of regulation of a priviiege parted ' 'byjA_and not a subject matter in which petitioners .' A ihavev 'O right, and therefore, submitted thatttie provisions canroet be tested on the touchstone of i.V:AJ*_ticIes 14, 15, 16, 19, 21 and 39 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:

....m. \lI avnnitﬂiﬂnﬂ ruun LUUKE QF!.:(ARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COIRTOF KARNWAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HiGH COURT 23 > STATE or PUNLJAB vs DEVANS--1:.f"--«.$'QDERN BREWERIES LTD [(2004) 11 > smm GOVERMmN".l';0F- A MMAKMSHNA [Am 3» COOVERJEE B} EXCISE comssrozszezz cm~r cemmsszomx, AJMER Am 119154 s.c:.. 220] >» smwaancsmsrp 1.1». AND omens Eeizwmns [1990] 1 see :> I-zt1o.z>11§% Ltm. AND OTHERS vs S1_'A1E"*_O'F:' AND OTIERS [1995] 1 _SC(";' 'V .

_saeh:pI:emise it is submitted by the learned Advocate ._ judgnent of the supreme court rendered "a7 of two ieamed judges, being at variance with A' 'tir._1.e deciared by the earlier larger benches as referred ':écjAAabove, the ruiing of the supreme court in AAUU GARG's " shouicl neither be followed nor applied as law declared by Supreme Court. It is therefore submitted that the 24 judgment rendered in the case of ANUJ is per uncut' mam' as not tak1n' g note of this legal support of such propositio11,<"relja;1ee on tidied"

decisions of the Supreme of J as RADHELAL reP0I'ted ti:ieRtt':1mdd1e9?-ﬁt and RP. RAMACHANDRA 1240 Odor' reported in Submission is that the observatziogin' of the decision in the case of contrary to the law MR1' OF KARNATAKA HSGH COURT i:€_gARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR as R' in the earlier larger Constitutional Beﬁeiiddeeisions, declaring that no one can claim; 'a in trade of liquor.

~ Advocate General seeks to distinquish the Supreme Court in the case of ANUJ . [sigxpra] by submitting that there was no effort made R "id: case to defend the validity of the legislation with h '---.".dL::'e1i'erence to the provisions of Article 15(3) of the » Constitution of India In this context, it is submitted 25 that the provisions of Section 20 and Rule Rules being provisions for protecting the of the women in vulnerable placeiike is served and patronized 1 and many .3 times not (lee to notwfastllt can be found with gas if it is taken for arguments of Article 15(1) of the of maldng gender based by Article 15(3) being a of this, draws attention to Court rendered in the case of. as sum or scum? pun A SC' is also placed on the decision in % __tI'1e feoomwae as EXCISE cmmrssxolmn, X 1954 so 220 - PARA-7]. Paxﬁcular reference AA to the following observation of the Supreme Court ens decision.

3.

g _;

'The statistics of every State shows a _4 amount of crime and misery to the use of ardent spirits obtainerj :

retail liquor saloons than to ' "

20. Sri Udaya. Holla, 'I also submit that the pmvisjonstﬁ; OPﬁir.;jab Act are not in pan' the Act; that under the P11njab;:--...Ar:t, subject; matter of decision in the 3{'si1pra.], there was an women in a licenced is consumed by pubﬁc, "the" Karnataka Act, only prior O' that if the Rule is one which is v1:£:§fao'~:;:ires; be so declared, but the Section can be sustained, as one imposing a reasonable '- Submission is that the provision is one reasonable restriction in the interest of safety V» 'axed feelfare of women and that carmot be characterized as a provision simply denying the right to women and it is in . ...----..n...-. mwn \.§.JUK¥ U'l,'_: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA I-HG!-I COUR1 27 support of such submission, the following *'oiteii.l.iivecisions axe relied upon.

2» Mom). HAM'!-"

oranmnpam 1953 $£.'__7'31]----_ " l > Imzsmnw us" 9 or mum AND [1i99:r]eo99sec 495 > M.J. vs sum or O?.1_'1=m1§S_V[ALtR«-i 995 so 1 7701 2 1. __ submissions, the writ eiiéonhnaﬁon, particularly to the challenge poseci 51 15;5¢¢&;c»eiii_§~2) of Section 20 of the Act and Rule $11) of the "Rules-9 9 cannot be said that first petitioner-licences and Vtiievlleilsecond and the third petitioners have locus to AA this petition and to question the legality of the l" provisions, as they are complaining that these provisions ' affect either business interest or one imposirig unreasonable restrictions in the context of grant of licence 28 and in the case of 2nd and 3"! peﬁtio employment aﬁecting his] her 'to employment etc., examinationwcen he touchstone of the relevant J of the petitioner.

23. Ruie 9(1), of women in a licenced place which is a rule of implementing the the Act, undoubtedly is a the scope of the Section, inasmuch does not prohibit employment of vzomen employment is sought to be regulated »' th1'ot_1ghe"p:ior permission to be obtained from the Deputy H * Therefore, the Rule is undoubtedly uitra is not sustainable and to be declared as ultra 2 'V Section 20 and beyond the Ruie making power and beyond the intent of Section 20 and is therefore void and _ _-.. _. ".1... 1:-II:-In!' ruun LUUKiA'AU."!.':: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA H16'-H COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR1

5. unenforceable.

i "*9! F V-v\nl\JIKE 29

24. While Section 20 no doubt does not ;'£:'>'_v prohibit employment of Women in such places, is seeking of a prior perfnissiopi' Beputy -:

Commissioner. As to such permission can nowiiere. out. There are no guidelines the Section can be worked by the to grant or refuse permission. it be providing for such gWE".__:!\AKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT guideiinesp as a guiding factor. Unfoﬁmletely. only for a total prohibition and t.herefore.4_havfing_ to be ultra vires, it is of no manner in which the Deputy in to exercise his power to gent V' 1 the section when viewed ﬁ"om the Qftya hiieeneee by itself cannot be said to be a aifects the right of the licencee, more for the reason that the licensee fundamentally V no right to trade in liquor and therefore a condition of KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR1 ¥ . .»._- .... ...-....u--nruu-\ nluﬂ LJJUKI 30 such nature on the licensee while per se may-«4.not be a provision which can be said to be --of,the other provision of the Constitution, test been oniy as to the reasonableness on the touchstone of 'of of India and if there should,. 'axiyfiurther impact on any one else, of the arguments advanced $1335 that a Iiceneee has no! trade in liquor, the state tt1e"_'stistenance of the validity of the pmtﬁstons. eﬁect and impact of such a provision' is di.:"-'ec'tlyé'"on the other petitioners, whose job A denied as in the present case, the beyond from the angle of the 2nd and 31*"

also and it is here section 20 fails the test of O, 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution oflndia Though in the Punjab Act, the examination was focused in the context of denial of job opportunity to the ATAKA HIGH COURT

-ncr1 uuwli yuan; [,)!{' _::mmAw<A HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA 1-use COURT OF MEN 3 1 mle counterpart bdow the age of 25years asjthe-tnresent day youth get themse-Ives gmreci anp assignments and emplomentoemzen ef}2C..Ato :"2 A1I_' years and deferring that to of J to be obnoxious, the at the negative impact V on tI,1e'"' to women and in the trend across the globe. a is not in respect of a ve:-if job, as is contended by the behalf of the State or else denial that it is a denial of job to It is for this reason, the learned v _ A made a valiant effort to sustain the t such provision on the basis of the provisions 'A ajorotecﬁve provision for the beneﬁt of Women and _ 1a special provision for women and to sub-serve the of protecting their safety and dignity. % Q, 33

27. A yrovision of this nature is directiy with Article 39 of the Constitution of " state, instead of endeavouring to achieve the to men and women to it means to livelihood, on =0thei* deniives the female section&'theVt.equaI"oj3i3ort1Inity even where it was availaldiiei it nature deﬁnitely falls foul at and Part-IV of the V V ﬁection 20 of the Act While is one to fojuiidd as conferring an unguided power the tifozzimissioner in granting or refusing __ and as violative of Article 14 of the A ._ of India also violates Articles 15 and 39 of the of India as indicated above.

In so far as the argument of the learned Advocate General that the judment of the Supreme Court in the Case of ANDU GARG [supra] is per incuriam and should o/d 37 that there being no attempt on the part oi" to defend the validity of the legislation': 'I p of ANUJ GARG [supra] with. 2 provision for women saved J argument primarily on that ' the special provisions need not favoiir of Women but any special provision with reasonable restxictionsﬁt; endeavour on the part of tiiata provision of the nature of O 20 of the Act imposing restriction in the matter of employment of women in Vvaviieenceidi lace where li uor is served is a A _ P 2 Q . _ A 'reasonable resﬁiction. Here again, the very premises is it ffor the reason that a speciai provision in terms of *1:5i'{3) of the Constitution of India is a provision :i?Uhip(p2I'1 is "meant to save situations which are otherwise jk.!Et__:1\A!(NATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HJGH COURT a._Owiroiati4ve of Article 15(1). While it is no doubt true that * -under Article 15(1), generally gender based discrimination '' is prohibited and persons belonging to either sex can .. _ - -.. .... 1:-uurII\r| I unan guy"; V

- ~vvn"IA \a.r_.: mu-\l<NAlAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA H16!-I COURT OF KARN ATAKA HIGH COUR1

- -twvl 46 women in other areas of eocerzc:>r_'nic-- _ and social life in order on a basis of equality qt' 1 women". . .

Parliament f; emyicted' .1 . O Protection of Human Rights'Acn:., 1.9S?3; Section 2(b).deﬁnes".'fhumanr@ht,s" to l "the rights 'relating to life, 'liberty, equrttity of the inditfititlaf by the ._ Cor.stitutioAn~..» or"veri1f3odied in the ir;:tern.¢itionctlvcxijz)enants and enforraeableijby in India".

" T_hereby, _ _the}pn'nc1;9les embodied C' * -- ., fin and concomitant right to V"c'iev_e'lop'me'nt 'became integral part of . the Constitution of India and the * VH'ur_n£m= ,é"i?ighLs Act and became * _ enfaroeable. Section 12 of the Protection of. _Human Rights Act charges the cominiesion with duty for proper implementation as well as prevention of Ielolatton of the human rights and

--. gﬁlndarnental freedoms.

" 'Though the Government of India kept its reservations on Articles 5(e), 16(1), 16(2) and 29 of CEDAW, they bear little consequence in view of the ﬁlndczmental rights in Article 15(1) and (3) and Article 21 and the Directive Princples of the Constitution.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court