ReutersWhat was the complaint?
According to the complaint, Mathur bought two Gillette razors from a retail outlet in Kota on September 25, 2026 — one from the men's range and another marketed specifically for women. Her counsel, Inder Mohan Singh, argued that the two products served essentially the same function, yet the women's razor carried a price tag four to five times higher.The complaint contends that such a disparity constitutes an unfair trade practice and misleading representation under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It further argues that differences in colour and gender-specific marketing cannot, by themselves, justify the substantial premium charged for the women's variant.
The ‘pink tax’ extends beyond personal care products to several aspects of everyday spending. In the beauty and personal care segment, products such as shampoos, conditioners and moisturisers marketed to women often carry higher price tags than comparable men's products, with differences frequently limited to packaging, colour or branding.
A similar disparity is seen in fashion and accessories, where women's formalwear and accessories can cost more despite comparable materials and construction, with the premium often attributed to design or finishing. Cosmetic procedures, which are extensively marketed to women, add another layer of expense. Healthcare also contributes to the financial burden, with recurring costs associated with gynaecological consultations, fertility assessments and reproductive health services.
Senior officials named in complaint
According to the TOI report, the commission has issued notices to Gillette India Ltd, its CEO and managing director Kumar Venkatasubramanian, chairperson Anjuly Chib Duggal and director Sanjay Asher, along with other concerned company officials and directors.The respondents have been directed to submit their replies by December 16.
Rs 50,000 compensation from Gillette India
The complaint seeks directions to Gillette India to stop discriminatory pricing and ensure greater transparency in its pricing practices.Mathur has also sought Rs 50,000 in compensation for mental harassment and financial loss, along with reimbursement of litigation expenses.


