Case Title:
State of Maharashtra v. Indian Hotel and Restaurants Association and Ors.
Three writ petitions were brought by the Association of Hotel and Bar Owners, the R.R. Patil Foundation, and the Bhartiya Bar girls in this case.
Section 33A of The Bombay Police Act forbade dance performances in any restaurant, permit room, or beer bar, but Section 33B made an exception and permitted dance performances in theatres or clubs with membership requirements. The Bombay High Court overturned this, and the Supreme Court later upheld it in the given case.
Additionally, the State of Maharashtra passed the Maharashtra Police (Second Amendment) Act, 2014, which amended the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, by adding Section 33A. This amendment prohibited dancing in all restaurants, permit rooms, and beer bars without the prior exceptions outlined in Section 33B. The Supreme Court suspended the application of the clause with the caveat that "no performance of dance shall remotely be reflective of any kind of obscenity." After this, the Respondent passed the Dance Act and the rules derived therefrom, some of whose sections were contested through the filing of this petition.
The Court discussed morality in its ruling, including the limits of what a State may do to impose morality on its people. The Court emphasized the ephemeral and adaptable nature of morality and made comments about how something that was potentially immoral in the past might not be so anymore. Since the term was also not defined in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Court considered the definition of obscene dance in Section 2(8), which included the phrase "aimed at arousing the prurient interest of the audience," and held that this could not be considered vague and incapable of definite connotation (IPC).
In order for a location to be either a dance bar or a discotheque but not both, the Court then considered Section 6(4) of the Dance Act, which prohibited the grant of a license for discotheques or orchestras if a license was given under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurant and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (working therein) Act, 2016 (Dance Act), and vice versa. The Court declared that this provision violated Article 14 because it was arbitrary, illogical, and had no rational connection to the act's intended aim.
The Court struck down the provisions relating to the ban on serving alcohol in the bar room where dances were staged in response to the challenges made to Section 8(2) of the Dance Act but upheld the ban on obscene dances and the punishment for the same. Customers were permitted to tip performers in accordance with Section 8(4) of the rules as long as they were not showered or thrown money at them. The Court ruled that the State could not mandate a specific method of tipping and that this disagreement would arise between the performer and visitor and the employer rather than the State.
The Court also disregarded the conditions for having an excellent character in order to get a licence since they were ambiguous and unclear. Additionally, the provision that stipulated keeping a one-kilometre distance from educational and religious institutions was repealed because it would have been in conflict with the actual situation in Mumbai. The Court struck down the requirement that performers receive a monthly salary because it could be restrictive for both employers and employees. However, the Court upheld the provisions relating to hiring women under contract and depositing the salaries into their bank accounts.
The Court determined that requiring the installation of CCTV cameras in bars would constitute an infringement on the right to privacy. Furthermore, it would be against Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21. Anita Allen's idea of "unpopular" privacy laws and duties to safeguard the common good, even if privacy was imposed on persons who did not want it, was used by the Court in K.S. Puttaswamy, where it was discussed in detail. As a result, the Court invalidated the requirement requiring the installation of CCTV cameras.