A widow, a toddy shop and a fight to break Kerala’s glass ceiling

A toddy shop is a workplace that sells toddy, a drink regulated under Kerala’s liquor and toddy-shop rules. Its employees may serve customers, sell toddy, manage the shop, clean utensils, or tap toddy from palms. The article presents it as a major source of income in Kerala’s toddy sector.

Sophy Kunjupalu hopes to join a toddy shop as a saleswoman or manager. Her late husband worked in the Irinjalakuda toddy range, and she first sought employment there on compassionate grounds. Women had previously been restricted mainly to cleaning work at the back of shops. Workers in the sector earn between Rs 35,000 and Rs 45,000 monthly, depending on sales.

The Kerala High Court’s ruling removes the legal barrier to women doing these jobs. The sector still has mostly male workers and trade unions opposed Sophy’s appointment. However, the ruling allows women to seek sales, management, and other toddy-shop work, subject to safe workplace conditions.

The Kerala High Court ruled that Rule 7(37), which prohibited women from working in toddy shops, violated constitutional principles of equality. The court rejected the idea that women’s safety could justify a blanket employment ban. Its decision followed 28 rounds of hearings on Sophy Kunjupalu’s petition.

The government argued that toddy shops are often in remote locations and that excluding women protected their safety and well-being. Justice P Gopinath’s single bench disagreed. It said the state must prevent harassment and provide safe workplaces, but cannot achieve that duty by prohibiting women from choosing a profession. The restriction was not justified or proportionate.

The judgment directs attention toward practical safety measures rather than exclusion. It could help women apply for sales, management, and other positions in toddy shops. Sophy is expected to join one, while the state must ensure working conditions that give women confidence to work wherever they choose.

Rule 7(37) of the Kerala Abkari Shops and Disposal Rules, 2002, regulates liquor and toddy shops and prohibited women from being employed in toddy shops. Because of that wording, the licensee refused Sophy Kunjupalu’s request for a job after her husband’s death. Male-dominated trade unions also opposed her appointment.

Sophy had sought work on compassionate grounds because her late husband had worked at the shop. She said women who obtained jobs in the sector were confined to cleaning utensils at the back. She needed employment to support her daughter, who is pursuing a CA course, and her son, who is in Class 12.

The government argued that toddy shops are often located in remote places. It said the rulemaking authority had to protect women’s safety and well-being. The High Court rejected that reasoning, holding that protection must come through safe working conditions, not a total ban on women’s employment.

The ruling removes the legal barrier that prevented women from being employed in toddy shops. Women can now seek work in roles such as sales or management, rather than being limited to cleaning duties or excluded altogether. This matters because toddy-sector jobs can provide monthly earnings of Rs 35,000 to Rs 45,000.

Sophy Kunjupalu’s case shows the possible change. She was initially refused a job, then received work for two months after a court direction. Trade unions protested, but she is now expected to join a toddy shop as a saleswoman or manager. The court said the state should address safety and harassment through workplace measures, not prohibition.

Sophy may become the first woman to work in a toddy shop. The ruling does not guarantee every applicant a job, and the article records continuing opposition. Its wider effect is to make recruitment legally possible while placing greater responsibility on the state and employers to ensure safety.

Kerala has 4,324 toddy shops and a workforce of about 21,000, according to Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board chairperson N V Chandrababu. The figures show that toddy work is a substantial employment sector, not a small or isolated group of jobs.

Women are already present, but mostly in limited roles. Around 200 women among the sector’s workers are engaged in cleaning jobs. Kerala also has one woman toddy tapper from Kannur, who entered the sector after her husband died. Sophy Kunjupalu is expected to become the first woman to work at a toddy shop in a sales or management position.

The numbers reveal both participation and exclusion. Women are not entirely absent, but their work has largely been confined to cleaning. The High Court ruling could broaden their opportunities across the sector, although the article does not give a new projected total for women workers.

The earlier decision concerned Rule 27A of the Kerala Foreign Liquor Rules. The Kerala High Court struck it down more than a decade before the toddy-shop ruling. That provision barred women from working in bars and retail shops dealing in Indian-made foreign liquor.

The court’s earlier decision affected a different part of Kerala’s liquor trade, but the principle was similar. Women were excluded from jobs because of a rule that treated the workplace as unsuitable for them. After Rule 27A was removed, scores of women were recruited or deputed to work at Indian-made foreign liquor retail outlets across the state.

That history provides a clear precedent for the toddy-shop case. It shows that removing an employment ban can lead to actual recruitment, not only a legal change. The newer ruling extends that equality principle to toddy shops, while requiring the state to address safety through workplace protections rather than exclusion.

Banning women from a workplace treats sex as a reason to deny employment, even when individual women are willing and able to do the work. The Kerala High Court found that this kind of blanket restriction can violate constitutional equality. Protection becomes unequal treatment when it removes women’s choices instead of addressing specific risks.

Sophy Kunjupalu’s case illustrates the problem. She needed work after her husband’s death and believed a toddy shop was no more dangerous than other workplaces. The government cited remote locations and safety, but the court said the state cannot protect women by prohibiting them from whatever industry they choose. It found the rule unjustified and disproportionate.

Equality before the law requires women to have the same legal opportunity to seek professions as men. It also requires the state to prevent harassment and create safe working conditions. The court therefore called for measures that eliminate unequal consequences and inspire confidence, rather than a total employment ban.