LexCHARU KHURANA & OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 259
CHARU KHURANA & OTHERS
v.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
{Writ Petition {Civil) No. 78 of 2013)
NOVEMBER. 10, 2014
[DIPAK MISRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: Articles 14, 21, 39A,
A
B
51A - Whether the female artists, who are eligible, can be
deprived to work in the film industry as make-up man and only c
be permitted to work as hair dressers, solely because the fifth ·
respondent-Association which is controlled by the Trade
Unions Act, 1926, has incorporated a clause relating to this
kind of classification and further stipulated that a person to
work must be a resident of Maharashtra for a period of 5 years
0
- Held: It is the duty of the State to frame policies so that men
and women have the right to adequate means of livelihood -
Equality cannot be achieved unless there are equal
opportunities and if a woman is debarred at the threshold to
enter into the sphere of profession for which she is eligible
E
and qualified, it is well nigh impossible to conceive of equality
- The statutory provisions of the Trade Union Act do not make
a distinction between man and woman - The Association has
been registered under thf! Trade Unions Act -
The
Association whose rules have been accepted, cannot take the
route of the discrimination solely on the basis of sex - It really
F
plays foul of the statutory provisions - It is absolutely violative
of constitutional values and norms - If a female artist does •
not get an opportunity to enter into the arena of being a
member of the Association, she cannot work as a female artist
- It is gender bias writ large and totally impermissible and
G
wholly unacceptable - The concept of domicile also has no
rationale and invites frown of Articles 14, 15 and 21 - Registrar
of Trade Unions had rightly directed Association to delete the
said rules - Trade Union Act, 1986 - Bias - Gender bias.
259
H
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2014] 12 S.C.R.
A
Disposing of the matter so far as the State of
Maharashtra is concerned, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Article 39A in Part IV of the Constitution
that deals with Directive Principles of State Policy,
8 provides that the State shall direct its policies towards
securing that the citizens, men and women equally, have
the right to adequate means of livelihood. Clause (d) of
the said Article provides for equal pay for equal work for
both men and women and Clause (e) stipulates that
health and strength of workers, men and women, and the
C tender age of children are riot abused and that citizens
are not forced by economic necessity to enter into
avocations unsuited to their age or strength. Article 51-A
clause (e) pr~scribes that all practices derogatory to the
dignity of women are to be renounced. Dignity is the
D quintessential quality of a personality and a human frame
always desires to live in the mansion of dignity, for it is a
highly cherished value. Clause 0) has to be understood
in the backdrop that India is a welfare State and,
therefore, it is the duty of the State to promote justice, to
E provide equal opportunity to see that all citizens and they
are not deprived of by reasons of economic disparity. It
is also the duty of the State to frame policies so that men
and women have the right to adequate means of
livelihood. It is also the duty of the citizen to strive
F towards excellence in all spheres of individual and
collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to
higher levels of endeavour and achievement. [Paras 30,
34] [277-E-G; 280-8-D]
Valsamma Paul (Mrs) v. Cochin University 1996 (1)
G SCR 128: (1996) 3 SCC 545; Madhu Kishwar v. State of
Bihar 1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 442: (1996) 5 sec 125;
Voluntary Health Assn. of Punjab v. Union of India (2013) 4
SCC 1; Vishaka and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and
Others 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 404: (1997) 6 SCC 241;
H
•
CHARU KHURANA v. UNION OF INDIA
261
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India 1981 (1) SCR 206 :
A
(1980) 3 SCC 625; Society for Unaided Private Schools of '
Rajasthan v. Union of India and Another 2012 (2 ) SCR 715
: (2012) 6 SCC 1 ; Paramati Educational and Cultural Trust
(Registered) and Others v. Union of India and others (2014)
8 SCC 1; Ramli/a Maidan Incident, In Re 2012 (4) SCR 971:
B
(2012) 5 SCC 1; Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. v.
Union of India 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 954 : (2007) 2 SCC
640; AllMS Students' Union v. A/IMS and others 2001 (2)
Suppl. SCR 79 : (2002) Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.