Dance Bars: SC asks Maha to decide applications in 4 weeks

The Supreme Court today directed Maharashtra to expeditiously decide on 69 pending applications for licenses to open dance bars in four weeks under old rules and the directions issued by it from time to time.
A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and R Banumathi said that the 69 applications pending with the state government should be decided by the competent authority within four weeks in accordance with old rules and directions of the court.
The direction came after senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, appearing for state government, informed the court that till December 14, 2016, total of 69 application for licenses have been filed and were being looked into by competent authority.

It asked the authority to keep in mind the order of November 24 last year in which the apex court had asked the applicants, who have not been granted licence, to submit their applications to the authority to get the licence and said that licences should be given to them on grounds of parity with those who have been already given.
The bench posted the matter after six weeks for further hearing.
Maharashtra government, in an affidavit filed before the court, had earlier defended the operation of a new law meant to regulate licensing and functioning of dance bars in the state.

The new law, Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016 has been challenged by hotel and restaurant owners before the apex court.

The state government in its reply has said, "It was observed that such dances were derogatory to the dignity of women and were likely to deprave, corrupt or injure public morality.
"It was also brought to the notice of the State Government that the places where such dances were staged were used as places for immoral activities and also as a place for solicitation for the purpose of prostitution".

The state said that prevention of obscenity in public places is a part of public policy in India and was reflected in provision of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
(Reopens LGD25)
The state government while defending the law said that there was some difference between an indecent act and an obscene act, although both conveyed the idea of offending against the recognised standards of propriety.
"Obscenity is at upper end of scale of indecency. The restrictions put by the Act, Rules framed thereunder and licensing conditions are reasonable," it said.
Highlighting that the dances done in these bars were not classical forms of dances and the young girls dancing in these premises were not trained artists, the government said that in such a situation, the possibility of dances becoming obscene to attract customers is inherent.

Citing a report of PRAYAS (a field action project of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences) in 2005, the state government said the study also pointed out that there was presence of the element of human trafficking in the entire process and the environment of the dance bars had negative impact on the physical and mental health of the minor girls.
It said there was no merit in the petition filed by Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (IHRA) which should be dismissed.
On September 21, the apex court had given interim relief to the state government by refusing to stay the operation of a new law though it had flagged some of its provisions.

It had also allowed three dance bars which were granted licences by the state administration to continue to function under old rules and the directions issued by it.
The court had questioned the clause for installation of CCTV cameras at performance areas saying it infringement of right to privacy.
One of the other regulation which was strongly contested by IHRA pertained to the mandatory condition that dancers are to be employed by the bar owners.
Maharashtra strongly opposed the contention of dance bar owners on various clauses in the new law and even questioned locus of petitioners, saying they were before the court as companies and not as aggrieved citizens.

The IHRA had claimed that the new Maharashtra Act violated the fundamental rights of hotel and bar owners and sought the court's direction to declare it unconstitutional, invalid, void and unenforceable.