What did Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act do?

It barred the employment of any woman in places where liquor was served to the public. The Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional.

Which rights were discussed in the case?

Articles 14, 15, 16, and 19(1)(g). The Court stressed equality and non-discrimination in employment.

Did the Court accept the ‘res extra commercium’ argument?

No. Managing hotels is specialized work. A blanket job ban cannot be justified by calling liquor trade unprotected.

What happened to the rule against hiring men under 25?

That restriction was also removed. Young qualified men can work in such establishments.

What standard applies to protective laws about gender?

Such laws must face strict judicial scrutiny—aims and real-world effects are both checked.

Law Easy

01 November, 2025

1251

Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India: Section 30, gender equality & strict scrutiny | Easy case note

Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India

AIR 2008 SC 663 — .

Supreme Court of India 2008 3-Judge Bench Citation: AIR 2008 SC 663 Area: Constitutional Law Reading time: ~6 min

Author: Gulzar Hashmi Location: India Published: 24 Oct 2025

Quick Summary

Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act banned employing “any woman” where liquor is served. The Supreme Court struck it down. The Court said gender bans built on stereotypes fail equality. Protective laws must be narrowly tailored and tested for real effects. The age bar on men under 25 was also removed.

Court: Supreme Court of India (2008)
Main provisions: Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(g)
Outcome: Section 30 unconstitutional; under-25 male ban removed

```

Issues

Is Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 constitutionally valid?
Do job restrictions on a class (women; men under 25) violate Articles 14, 15, 16, and 19(1)(g)?

Rules

Article 14: Equal protection; no arbitrary classifications.
Article 15: No discrimination on sex; “protective” laws must not entrench stereotypes.
Article 16: Equal chance for public employment; fair consideration is a right.
Article 19(1)(g): Freedom to practice any profession; limits must be reasonable and proportionate.

Standard: Gender-based restrictions face strict judicial scrutiny with a focus on aims and real-world effects.

Facts (Timeline)

Hotels serve liquor in bars, restaurants, and rooms as part of business.

Hotel Association of India filed a writ in Delhi High Court against Section 30’s blanket ban on employing women.

Delhi HC struck down the women’s employment ban; kept an age bar on men under 25.

Appeals reached the Supreme Court, including arguments about liquor being res extra commercium.

Arguments

Appellants (Citizens)

Liquor trade is res extra commercium; State may impose tough limits, including hiring bans.
Restrictions protect safety and morality; courts should defer to policy.

Respondents (Hotel Association)

Blanket ban on women is discriminatory and stereotype-driven; violates Arts. 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(g).
Age bar on men is arbitrary; skill, not age, should decide suitability.

Judgment

Women’s Employment Ban

Section 30 was held unconstitutional. Protective claims cannot rest on prejudice or paternalism.

Under-25 Male Bar

The Court removed the age limit. Merit and training—not age alone—should govern hiring.

Standard Applied

Gender laws must meet strict judicial scrutiny and pass the effects test—look at outcomes, not just aims.

Ratio

	Principle	Easy Meaning
1	Anti-stereotyping	Laws can’t assume women are unsafe or unfit; provide safety measures, not job bans.
2	Strict scrutiny for gender	State must show a compelling goal and narrow tailoring; broad bans fail.
3	Effects over aims	Court checks actual impact on equality and opportunity, not only the stated purpose.
4	Res extra commercium limited	Tagging liquor as special does not justify blanket employment bans in hotels.

Equality demands reasonable safeguards (lighting, security, hours) rather than exclusion.

Why It Matters

The ruling pushes Indian equality law toward dignity and choice. It warns lawmakers: protect workers with facilities and rules, not with bans that shut doors.

Key Takeaways

Section 30 struck down as unconstitutional.
Age bar on men under 25 removed.
Gender laws must pass strict scrutiny and avoid stereotypes.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: S-A-F-E → Scrutiny, Anti-stereotype, Fair opportunity, Effects test.

Ask Scrutiny: Is there a compelling goal?
Fix Measures: Use safety norms, not bans.
Evaluate Effects: Check if the rule reduces equality.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether Section 30’s job ban on women and the age bar on men meet constitutional standards.

Rule

Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(g); gender rules face strict scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored.

Application

Bans rely on stereotypes, not evidence. Safety can be ensured by targeted conditions, not exclusions.

Conclusion

Section 30 unconstitutional; age bar removed; equality and choice affirmed.

Glossary

Res extra commercium: Idea that some trades (like liquor) have limited constitutional protection.
Strict scrutiny: State must show a compelling aim and narrow means for suspect classifications.
Protective discrimination: A rule said to “protect” a group; it must not reduce their opportunity or dignity.

FAQs (Student-Friendly)

It used a blanket ban on women. That is over-broad, stereotype-based, and not narrowly tailored.

The age bar was arbitrary and removed. Ability and training matter more than a fixed age cut-off.

No. Use targeted safeguards (security, hours, transport). A total ban kills opportunity.

Strict scrutiny with an effects focus—do the rules actually harm equality in practice?

Comment

Nothing for now