Mumbai Dance Bars to reopen after Apex Court relaxes Stringent Rules
In recent judgment given by the Apex Court in Indian Hotel And Restaurant Association (Ahar) & Anr. Versus The State Of Maharashtra & Ors (2016) , it relaxed some laws for dance bars in Maharashtra that were ‘banned’ in 2005 after the government sought to “prevent immoral activities, trafficking of women and to ensure the safety of women in general”.
On Thursday, the apex court said that “there can be regulations but not total prohibition” on dance bars in the state. From 2005 till date, not a single person has been given license (for dance bars). It cannot be done.
The batch of three Writ Petitions was heard together and is being disposed of by this Common Judgment as similar issues and prayers are raised in all these petitions.
Petitioner No. 1 in Writ Petition is an Association of various Hotel Owners and Bar Owners and/or Conductors of the same, who carry on business of running Restaurants and Bars in Mumbai.
Petitioner No. 2 is the secretary of petitioner No. 1 and is a citizen of India, who runs a restaurant and bar.
Petitioner No. 3 is the Bhartiya Bargirls Union, on behalf of a large number of women dancers, singers and waitresses.
All duly registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926.
Respondent No.1 in all the three writ petitions is the State of Maharashtra. The other respondents in the three petitions comprise of various departments/authorities of the State of Maharashtra.
The instant writ petitions have been preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging certain provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurant and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016 and also the Rules framed there under being the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurant and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Rules, 2016 which, as the Petitioners submit, violate the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 (1)(a), 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
A bench headed by Justice A. K. Sikri upheld the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (working therein) Act, 2016 but scrapped or diluted many of its provisions.
1. The court removed the requirement of a partition between the dancing area and the bar/restaurant area and the ban on serving alcohol in the dance area. The requirement of applicants to have “good character” with no history of criminal record was also struck down.
2. The court order allows tips for dancers, but prohibits showering money on them.
3. Dance bars can operate between 6pm and 11.30pm.
4. The court also struck down the rule requiring them to install CCTV cameras inside, on the grounds that it violates privacy.
5. The court said that the rule that a dance bar must be located at least 1 km away from religious places and educational institutions is unconstitutional.
6. Closed-circuit televisions will be installed at the entrance, with a limit of four dancers per bar, a railing around the performance area, and a distance of at least 5 feet (1.5 m) between the stage and customers.
7. The court mandated written contract with employees, deposit of the remuneration in their bank accounts, and submission of the contract with the licensing authority. The employment need not be monthly, and could be based per performance.
The Dance Bar Girls Association welcomed the verdict, adding the SC had upheld the contractual agreement which was its long-standing demand. “It is a good judgement that would hopefully bring about the much-needed regulation in the industry. We have always fought against exploitation of dancers but banning the activity was never the solution. We now hope this ruling will help bar owners get licences and the dancers would get employment in a much regulated environment,” association president Varsha Kale said.
Maharashtra home minister Ranjeet Patil said the ruling was a “mixed verdict which does not reflect the public sentiment in Maharashtra which was against dance bars”. The government would give a detailed reaction after studying the verdict and also decide the future course of action.
Further court said “It is better to dance than to go to streets for begging or earning livelihood through unacceptable means. The mindset cannot be to prohibit, we are treating it as a performance of art.” Dancing is an established profession. But if it becomes obscene, then it does not have legal sanctity.
Criticism of the Judgement-
A. womens who dance in bars are trafficked or compelled to dance against their will;
Chapter 1 B. a significant number of dancers are minor or under the age of eighteen years;
Chapter 2 C. the majority of dancers are from states outside Maharashtra which confirms the allegation of inter-state trafficking;
Chapter 3 D. dancing in bars is a ‘gateway’ to prostitution
Chapter 4 E. bar dancing is associated with crime and breeds criminality
Chapter 5 F. the conditions in dance bars are exploitative and dehumanizing for women
Chapter 6 G. bar dancing contributes to social-ills such as illicit affairs between dancers and the male visitors break up of family and domestic violence against wives of men visiting the dance bars.
Chapter 7 Who will be responsible for the above?
The decision is welcomed by mass of people but at the same time is unpleasant to many.
The guideline seems to be efficient and effective but In India the main issue is the implementation of the guidelines. Monitoring committee must be constituted for the same.
By-
Abhinav jassal
Student reporter, INBA.