Nothing Wrong in Banning Showering Money on Bar Dancers, Says SC

The Court has asked the state to respond to a petition challenging the validity of the new Dance Bars Law.

Sushant Talwar
India
Published:
Photo used only for representational purposes. (Photo: Reuters)
i
Photo used only for representational purposes. (Photo: Reuters)
null

advertisement

The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that it found no illegality in the provision prohibiting the showering of coins and currency notes on bar dancers.

Prima facie we don’t find any illegality as it is some kind of disrespect affecting someone on dignified culture and decency.
Supreme Court

A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and C Nagappan, however, issued notice to the state government on a batch of petitions including one filed by Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (IHRA), challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016.

Court Seeks Maharashtra Govt’s Reply on Petition

The court gave the Maharashtra government eight weeks’ time to respond to the petition by the IHRA, and sought its response in two weeks on the plea for interim relief on the rule prohibiting liquor in the dance area and mandating the installation of CCTV cameras near performance areas in dance bars.

Directing the hearing on two issues on 21 September, the bench noted that both were contrary to its 2014 judgment by which it had permitted the installation of CCTV cameras at the entrance only.

The petition claimed that the 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.

Appearing for IHRA, senior counsel Jayant Bhushan told the court that the definition of “obscene dance” in the new law is so vague that it was capable of being misused.

The senior counsel assailed the new law and the rules on several counts including that it takes away the liberty of a dancer to work at more than one place by asking that she be associated to a specific place only.

It also prohibits bars within one kilometre of an educational institution or a religious place, and has provisions for three years’ punishment to the owners of the bar for any obscene dances.

(With agency inputs.)

(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)

Published: undefined

ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL FOR NEXT