The Price of Being a Woman

**Mahi Agrawal

Imagine walking into a store and paying more for a pink razor than a blue one–despite both being functionally identical. This is not an isolated instance, but part of a larger pattern known as the pink tax– the additional cost women pay for products and services marketed specifically to them, such as personal care items, clothing, and salon services. It is not an actual government-imposed tax but rather a pricing strategy used by companies, which is considered unethical but not illegal in India. It is the cost that women pay for purchasing women products. 

While the issue of pink tax has been widely discussed in economic and social contexts, there is limited discussion addressing the pink tax as a distinct legal issue. Nevertheless, the broader constitutional principles of gender equality and non-discrimination provide a foundation for addressing such practices. This blog aims to analyse whether the principle of equal pay can be extended to equal pricing, and whether discriminatory pricing policies based on gender can be challenged under the existing legal framework in India.

Why are Women Paying the Pink Tax? 

At first glance, common questions that arise when examining the pink tax are: How do corporations get away with charging women more for essentially the same products? Why don’t women simply avoid falling for gender-generic packaging and go for unisex products instead? However, when we pause and reflect, the real issue is not about limiting consumer choices–it is about why corporations, and even governments, are legally allowed to impose this discriminatory pricing in the first place? When daily essentials cost more for women despite being functionally identical, they are compelled to either absorb the cost or shift toward unisex or male-marketed alternatives. This leads to what economists describe as a consumption penalty–where women incur higher lifetime spending without commensurate increase in product utility.

This disparity plays out in multiple facets of everyday life. For instance, a woman’s haircut often costs 60% more than a man’s haircut. Research shows that women pay around 7% more for general products and 13% more for personal items. These figures reflect a broader pattern of systematic economic inequality embedded in everyday transactions, showing that pink tax is not merely a symbolic issue; it has real, quantifiable financial implications for women over their lifetime. Beyond private corporations, even public policy has at times contributed to this burden. For example, the Indian Government initially introduced a 12% GST slab on sanitary products, a decision that drew sharp criticism from the opposition and the general public. Although sanitary towels (pads) or sanitary napkins, and tampons were completely exempted from GST in July 2018, the raw materials used in manufacturing of these personal hygiene essentials remain subject to 12% and 18% GST, ultimately driving up production costs, affecting affordability, and skewing consumption patterns.

Does “Equal Pay” Extend to Equal Pricing? 

The issue of discriminatory gender-based pricing has gained prominence alongside the global movement demanding equal pay for equal work. The wage gap—where women earn significantly less than men—translates into reduced disposable income for women across their lifetimes. According to the World Bank, women globally earn just 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, and at the current pace, it could take another 134 years to bridge this gap. This economic disparity is further exacerbated by the pink tax, which essentially imposes higher prices on products and services marketed specifically to women. For instance, women’s shampoos and conditioners are, on average, 48% more expensive than those marketed to men, despite minimal differences in formulation. Similarly, everyday services like haircuts and dry cleaning also reflect this pricing bias.

The combined impact of earning less and paying more creates a compounding financial disadvantage. Over time, this reduces women’s ability to save, invest, and accumulate wealth, effectively perpetuating the cycle of gender-based economic inequality. Thus, the pink tax is not just a marketing concern—it is a structural barrier that reinforces financial disparity and demands legal and policy scrutiny. 

This intersection of economic disparity and discriminatory pricing practices raises an important legal question: can such gender-based financial burdens be addressed under the broader umbrella of constitutional and international commitments to gender equality? Indian jurisprudence has long recognised that gender-based discrimination, especially in the content of remuneration, violates the right to equality. In Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D’Costa & Anr. (1987), the Supreme Court categorically held that discrimination based on gender in remuneration for similar work is impermissible. Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India provides that the State shall direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for all genders. Addressing this provision, the Apex Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) held that the principle of equal pay for equal work is recognised by all socialist systems of law, including the Preamble to the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), and non-compliance with Article 39(d) amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16. In addition to the aforementioned Preamble of the ILO, Article 2 of the Convention Concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value, 1951 (ILO’s Equal Renumeration Convention) mandates that countries guarantee equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value.

India has also ratified and acceded to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which sets out an agenda for national action to end discrimination against women in all areas of life. Indian Courts have frequently made references to India’s obligations under the CEDAW. For instance, in Nidhi Singh v. Animesh Singh (2022), the Uttarakhand High Court emphasised the need to abolish all forms of discriminatory laws and practices in line with CEDAW– a principle that could also be extended to address gender-based pricing disparities.   

While the legal recognition of equal pay is a step forward, its impact remains incomplete if women continue to pay more than men for the same products and services. After all, earning equally means little if spending unequally remains the norm. In India, where women earn only Rs. 40 for every Rs. 100 earned by men, the burden of pink tax further diminishes their financial autonomy and deepens existing inequalities. Socio-economic justice, as enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India, encompasses equality of opportunity, the right to development, and the right to pursue one’s self-interest. In this context, gender justice is not limited to earning equal wages, it also requires ensuring that women have equal purchasing power, enabling them to genuinely realize their goals and exercise autonomy over their lives.. To truly uphold the constitutional guarantee of gender equality, the principle of non-discrimination must therefore extend beyond employment and income to include pricing practices in goods and services as well.  

Constitutional & Legal Safeguards Against Pink Tax

India does not have any specific laws or regulations that directly address or prohibit the pink tax. However, consistent gender-based price disparities, coupled with State inaction, risk amounting to implicit endorsement and undermine various constitutional guarantees. 

Firstly, the imposition of pink tax is in direct contradiction with the right to equality. Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law. Article 15(1) prohibits all sorts of discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Gendered pricing results in unequal treatment of consumers based on their sex and amounts to arbitrary discrimination. This is because there exists neither an intelligible differentia nor a rational nexus to justify such classification. Men’s and women’s versions of a product are often identical in terms of ingredients and functionality, with only superficial differences in packaging, typically limited to colour. Therefore, no reasonable basis exists to justify different prices. Moreover, charging women more purely on the basis of gender is arbitrary and lacks any legislative or policy justification. When the State permits or ignores such practices in retail or service pricing, it effectively endorses arbitrariness in the market, thereby violating Article 14’s foundational requirement of fairness and non-arbitrariness. While Articles 14-18 primarily apply to state actions, they can be invoked against the systematic practices that perpetuate gender discrimination. In this regard, the Orissa High Court, in Urbashi Sashoo v. State of Orissa (2021) stated as follows:

“The principle of “gender equality” is enshrined in the Indian Constitution and in its Preamble and Fundamental Rights. It also finds mention in the Fundamental duties as well as directive Principles. Our Constitution grants equality to women, ensures their equality before the law, and prohibits discrimination against any citizen on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. So it is expected that the Government should make endeavour to eliminate obstacles, prohibit all gender-based discriminations which is also mandated by Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. It should also take all steps possible to modify law and its policies in order to do away with gender-based discrimination in the existing laws and regulations.”

Secondly, Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, encompasses the right to live with dignity. In Vishaka’s case (1997), the Supreme Court read Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution in conjunction with the CEDAW to realize the true concept of “gender equality” and frame guidelines to prevent workplace sexual harassment of women. In Coal India Ltd. v. Hamshikha Mallick (2016), the Chhattisgarh High Court stated as follows:

“If we are ready to bow down before the female idols to get benefit for ourselves, why should women not have some rights as men in real life. When we actually deal with women, what to talk of worshipping them like ‘Devis’ we are not even willing to give them the same benefits, which we are giving to other persons in society”.

These cases collectively highlight the judiciary’s stance against gender-based discrimination in various forms. The liberal interpretation of Article 21 recognizes that financial independence and equitable treatment are integral to the right to live with dignity. Practices that impose an undue financial burden on women infringe upon this right, as they restrict access to essential goods, exacerbate economic inequality, and undermine financial autonomy for women. 

Still, the challenge remains: how does one legally categorize price discrimination that is not overt but functions through branding, color-coding, and psychological targeting? While such strategies may appear benign or marker-driven, they can result in tangible financial harm to a particular demographic. To address this, a legal doctrine recognizing the functional equivalence could prove useful in assessing discriminatory intent where price difference exists without justification. By establishing that the products are functionally the same, it becomes evident that price disparities are based on gender-targeted marketing rather than substantive differences.

Finally, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, recognizes the right to be protected against unfair trade practices and the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, and pricing of goods and services. Section 2(47)(g) of the Act defines “unfair trade practice” as any trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice, including making a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services. Furthermore, Section 2(28) defines “misleading advertisements” to include advertisements that falsely describe a product or mislead the consumers about its nature, substance, or quality. Therefore, even when ingredient lists are accurate, the packaging and branding, such as pink hues, “for her” tags, and floral motifs, can create an illusory sense of enhanced usefulness or need, despite no meaningful difference in function or quality, thereby misleading consumers and potentially falling afoul of the Act.

The Price of Equality: A Call for Change

Several countries have taken concrete legal and policy steps to address the pink tax. In the United States, California passed the Gender Tax Repeal Act in 1995, banning businesses from charging different prices for services based solely on gender. More recently, New York State’s 2020 law prohibits charging a higher price for goods or services that are substantially similar in function and composition unless justified by factors like cost of production. At the federal level, the Pink Tax Repeal Act (2023-24) has been introduced to empower the Federal Trade Commission to address such pricing disparities, although it remains pending. Additionally, Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher introduced the Pink Tariffs Study Act in 2024 to investigate gender-based disparities in import duties on consumer goods. Many countries, including India (2018), Canada (2015), Kenya (2004), and the UK (2021), have also eliminated taxes on menstrual hygiene products. These developments reflect growing international recognition of gender-based pricing as a discriminatory practice and provide actionable models for India to consider in advancing economic gender justice.
While constitutional principles and consumer protection framework do offer a potential avenue for challenging such discriminatory pricing, a true meaningful change requires both legal recognition and policy intervention. Building on India’s 2018 GST exemption for tampons, similar tax reliefs should be extended to other female-branded essentials like razors, especially where no functional differences exist. India could take cues from the U.S. by legislating a definition for “substantially similar” products—mandating price parity where goods differ only in gendered packaging or branding, unless demonstrable cost differences exist. To ensure enforcement, authorities such as the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) should be empowered to investigate and penalize gender-based pricing under the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, introducing mandatory labeling or public reporting of gender-based price differences can foster transparency and encourage companies to self-regulate through public accountability. In addition to these policy measures, suo moto cognizance of this issue by the Supreme Court would expedite this process. As India strives for true gender parity, the conversation must extend beyond equal pay for equal work to equal purchasing power, because financial independence is only as strong as the fairness of the marketplace that sustains it. 

**Mahi Agrawal, a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur

**Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily align with the views of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.