Analysis of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance Act and Its Impact on Dance Bars

The present batch of writ petitions challenges the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants, and Bar Rooms and the Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016 (referred to as ‘the Act’) and the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants, and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Rules, 2016 (referred to as ‘the Rules’). These writ petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, alleging that the provisions of the Act and Rules violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners in these cases include associations representing hotel owners, bar owners, and the Bhartiya Bargirls Union, a trade union representing women workers in the hospitality and entertainment sector. The main issue in these petitions is whether the provisions of the Act, which prohibit dance performances in certain establishments, infringe upon the constitutional rights of the petitioners and other workers in the industry.

These petitions focus on the regulatory framework imposed by the Maharashtra State Government on dance performances in public establishments. The petitioners argue that the prohibitions and restrictions imposed by the Maharashtra Police (Amendment) Act, 2014, along with its implications on the livelihood of dancers, violates their constitutional rights. The argument emphasizes that the law imposes unreasonable restrictions on free speech, the right to carry on business, and infringes upon the dignity and livelihood of dancers.

The background to this case is crucial to understanding the legal reasoning. Initially, in 2005, the Maharashtra State Government introduced provisions under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, which banned dance performances in restaurants, bars, and other eating establishments. However, these provisions were challenged in the courts, and in 2013, the Bombay High Court struck down the relevant provisions, declaring them unconstitutional, as they violated the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Following this, the Maharashtra Government enacted the Maharashtra Police (Second Amendment) Act, 2014, which reintroduced similar provisions with modifications.

In this context, the petitioners argue that the ban on dance performances in certain establishments is not based on any empirical evidence and that the presumption that such performances lead to public immorality and the exploitation of women is unfounded. They contend that the provisions violate the right to carry on business and the freedom to practice any profession, trade, or occupation guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g), as well as the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Furthermore, they argue that the law fails to meet the test of reasonableness under Article 14 as it unjustly discriminates between different types of establishments and imposes prohibitions that have no reasonable nexus to the objective of protecting women or preserving public morality.

On the other hand, the State Government justifies the Act as a regulatory measure aimed at protecting the dignity and safety of women working in these establishments. The government argues that the ban on obscene dance performances is a measure to safeguard women from exploitation, as certain dance performances have been found to be obscene and exploitative. They also emphasize that the Act is not a blanket prohibition but is designed to regulate the performance of dances in public spaces, ensuring that such performances are not obscene or exploitative. The State Government further asserts that the provisions of the Act are a necessary and proportional response to the concerns surrounding public decency and morality.

The petitioners, however, argue that the provisions of the Act are disproportionate and not based on any sound evidence. They contend that the existing laws and regulations are sufficient to address any issues related to public morality and the dignity of women. Furthermore, they highlight the economic consequences of the ban, pointing out that the closure of dance bars has led to widespread unemployment among women workers who relied on these establishments for their livelihood. They argue that many women have been forced to seek alternative employment in more exploitative sectors, such as prostitution, due to the closure of dance bars. In essence, the petitioners claim that the Act has proven to be counterproductive and has led to the further marginalization of women workers rather than protecting their dignity and rights.

The Supreme Court, in considering these arguments, must weigh the competing interests of public morality, the dignity of women, and the fundamental rights of individuals and businesses affected by the law. The Court must also assess whether the restrictions imposed by the Act are reasonable and whether they are necessary in light of the existing regulatory framework. In doing so, the Court must consider the broader societal context in which these issues arise, including the changing norms surrounding public entertainment, the role of women in the workforce, and the need for regulation in a rapidly evolving social landscape.

The Court is expected to examine whether the provisions of the Act and the Rules strike a balance between protecting women from exploitation and ensuring that their fundamental rights are not unduly infringed. In this regard, the Court must consider whether the ban on dance performances in certain establishments is the least restrictive means to achieve the desired goals of the Act and whether there are less intrusive measures that could be taken to address the concerns raised by the State.

Ultimately, the outcome of this case will have significant implications for the regulation of public entertainment and the protection of women’s rights in India. It will also provide clarity on the extent to which the State can regulate activities in the name of public morality and decency, and the extent to which such regulation may conflict with the fundamental rights of individuals and businesses.

Petitioner Name: Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association.
Respondent Name: State of Maharashtra.
Judgment By: Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice Ashok Bhushan.
Place Of Incident: Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 17-01-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Indian Hotel and Res vs State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 17-01-2019.pdf