Top Stories

We are not in 1935, women can be makeup artists, says Supreme Court

Gaurav Pathak
4 Nov 2014 3:01 PM GMT
We are not in 1935, women can be makeup artists, says Supreme Court
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

“You better delete this clause on your own. Remove this immediately. We are in 2014, not in 1935. Such things cannot continue even for a day,”, this is what the Supreme Court had to say to Cine Costume Make-up Artists and Hair Dressers Association (CCMAA).The petition in this regard was filed by Charu Khurana and other women make-up artists, who had qualifications from Cinema Make-up School, California but CCMAA in 2009 had rejected her membership application as she is a woman.

The Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and U U Lalit remarked on the 59 year old practice of not allowing women to be makeup artists that is prevalent in the film industry, they said, “How can this discrimination continue? We will not permit this. It cannot be allowed under our Constitution. Why should only a male artist be allowed to put make-up? How can it be said that only men can be make-up artists and women can be hairdressers? We don’t see a reason to prohibit a woman from becoming a make-up artist if she is qualified,”

The Centre in this matter had asked for more time to collect information, which was not taken kindly by the Court. The Apex Court said that besides Mumbai, only Kolkata, Bangalore, Chennai and Hyderabad have film industries and the government’s plea of more time was declined.

Advocate Jyoti Kalra, appearing for the petitioner reportedly said that the union in Maharashtra had declined to delete the said clause even after state government’s order. The Bench replied by saying“Don’t worry. If they don’t do it this time, we will order deletion,”

Meanwhile, CCMAA has been given one week time to come back with a “positive response.”

In Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, Supreme Court had struck down Section 30 of Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, which prohibited the employment of any man under the age of 25, and any woman, in any part of an establishment in which liquor or another intoxicating drug was being consumed. The Court held that “The Act is a pre constitutional legislation. Although it is saved in terms of Art.372 of the Constitution, challenge to its validity on the touchstone of Art.14, 15 and 19 of the Constitution of India, is permissible in law. While embarking on the questions raised, it may be pertinent to know that a statute although could have been held to be a valid piece of legislation keeping in view the societal condition of those times, but with the changes occurring therein both in the domestic as also international arena, such a law can also be declared invalid” “

Last year, Supreme Court had lifted the ban on dance bars in Maharashtra. However, the Maharashtra Cabinet had thereafter approved a bill by which dance bars were proposed to be banned.

Next Story