Supreme Court Strikes Down Gender and Residency Discrimination by Bombay Film Industry Trade Union

SC directs registration of qualified female make-up artists as members of the Cine Costume Make-up Artists and Hair Dressers Association, condemning gender bias and unconstitutional domicile restrictions.

In a landmark judgment dated November 10, 2014, the Supreme Court of India delivered a strong verdict against gender discrimination and unconstitutional residency criteria imposed by the Cine Costume Make-up Artists and Hair Dressers Association (“the Association”), a registered trade union in the Bombay film industry. The case, Charu Khurana & others v. Union of India & others, addressed the refusal of membership and professional recognition to qualified female make-up artists on the grounds that they were women and had not been residents of Maharashtra for five years.

The petitioners, including Ms. Charu Khurana, a Hollywood-trained make-up artist and hair stylist, challenged the Association’s bye-laws which restricted membership to “make-up men” and allowed only “hair dressers” as female members. Additionally, the Association required applicants to produce domicile proof of residence in Maharashtra for five years, a condition that the Court found to be arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees.

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Uday Umesh Lalit, unequivocally condemned these discriminatory practices as violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality before law), 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession), 21 (right to life and livelihood), and 39A (equal pay for equal work) of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that the Association, though not a State under Article 12, was bound by the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and could not enforce rules contrary to the Act or constitutional mandates.

The judgment highlighted that the exclusion of women from the status of make-up artists reflected a deep-rooted gender bias inconsistent with modern constitutional values and India’s international commitments under treaties like CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women). The Court reiterated that gender equality is a fundamental right, noting precedents where discrimination against women in employment was struck down.

Regarding the domicile requirement, the Court cited previous rulings such as Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) and Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) to assert that imposing residency criteria that restrict access to professional opportunities violates equality of opportunity guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court found no justification for the Association’s five-year Maharashtra residency rule and quashed it as unconstitutional.

The Court ordered the deletion of the offending clauses in the Association’s bye-laws and directed that the petitioners be registered as members of the Association as make-up artists within four weeks. It mandated the Registrar of Trade Unions to ensure compliance and warned that any harassment of female make-up artists would attract police intervention.

This judgment sends a powerful message to trade unions and professional bodies across India that gender-based discrimination and arbitrary residency restrictions cannot be tolerated. It reinforces the constitutional promise of equal opportunity and livelihood for women, especially in sectors like the film industry where they have historically faced exclusion.

The Supreme Court has also called for the matter to be taken up in other States, indicating a wider impact on similar discriminatory practices nationwide.

Statutory provisions

Constitution of India Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), 21, 32, 39A; Trade Unions Act, 1926 Sections 5, 6, 10, 21, 21A

Charu Khurana v. Union of India (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 632465