A bench of justices Dipak Misra and P C Pant, while expressing unhappiness on non-implementation of its October 15 interim order, said the hoteliers will also have to comply with the rules.
"We remind that the state is obliged by law to enforce the order without any deviation. The order passed by the court has to be respected... Issue licenses to bars in two weeks," the bench said.
It, meanwhile, allowed Vinod Patil, President of R R Patil Foundation, to intervene in the matter. Patil had in his plea claimed that re-opening of dance bars would increase crime.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Maharashtra, however, said that any direction of the court will be respected and adhered to.
"The bars were a great draw among the youth and drinking heavily and watching dance was completely unacceptable to the state," he contended.
He said that the state government banned dance bars after noticing the negative impact on youngsters who indulged in selling their ancestral properties, getting astounding prices and showering money in dance bars.
But the bench, asking the government to issue licenses to bars to host dance performances within two weeks, maintained that people have a right to carry out a profession so long as they perform it within acceptable parameters.
The Court further said that dance is a respectable
On October 15, the apex court had stayed the operation of 2014 amendment in the Maharashtra Police Act that had banned dance performances at bars and some other places, paving the way for reopening of dance bars across the state.
The order had come on a petition filed by Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association which challenged the amendment and sought contempt of court action against Maharashtra government.
The court had noted that the provision was brought back in Maharashtra Police Act in 2014 after being held ultra vires in 2013 by the top court.
The Bombay High Court had on April 12, 2006 quashed the government's decision and declared the provision as unconstitutional saying that it is against Article 19(1)(g) (to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business) of the constitution.
However, the state government had moved the apex court against the high court's order that same year.
On July 16, 2013, the Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court verdict quashing the state government's order and had said that the ban violated the constitutional right to earn a living.
The ban also covered drama theaters, cinema halls, auditoriums, sports clubs and gymkhanas, where entry is restricted only to members.
The 2014 amendment in the Maharashtra Act was challenged by Indian Hotels and Restaurant Association and others before the apex court.
Nearly 1500 bars across the state had employed more than 75,000 women dancers before the state government first imposed the ban in 2005.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
