INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Ors.

#7. Legality of Rule 3(3)(i) challenged on the ground that it is quite vague. A B C D E F G H 380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. As per this sub-rule, a person is entitled to obtain or hold licence who possesses a ‘good character’ and ‘antecedents’ and he should not have any history of ‘criminal record’ in the past ten years. However, the terms ‘good character’ or ‘antecedents’ or ‘criminal record’ are not definite or precise. These expressions are capable of any interpretation and, therefore, it is left to the wisdom of the licensing authority to adjudge whether a particular person possesses good character or good antecedents or not. Likewise, insofar as history of criminal record is concerned, it is not spelled out as to whether such a criminal record is based on conviction in a case or mere lodging of FIR would be termed as criminal record. Therefore, the provision is quashed in the present form, but, at the same time, liberty is given to the rule making authority to have suitable provision of precise nature. Consequently, condition No. 16 of Part B in the present form is also set aside. [Para 95]458-D-F]

#8. Condition No. 2 of Part A of general conditions (GOC) was that size of stage in the bar room should not be less than 10 feet x 12 feet; that the stage in bar room has to be with non- transparent partition between hotel, restaurant and bar room area. In essence, it segregated bar room area from hotel and restaurant and Fixed partition is prescribed between permit room and dance room. There is no objection to the condition that the size of stage in the bar room should not be less than 10 feet x 12 feet. However, as regards the partition, there is no rationality or justification in imposing such a condition which appears to be quite unreasonable and there cannot be any rationale in this provision having regard to any objective sought to be achieved. Therefore, this provision is struck down. [Paras 96, 97][458-G-H; 459-A-C]

#9. Condition No.11 of Part A stipulates that the place where dance is to be performed shall be at least 1 km away from the educational and religious institutions. Such a condition does not take into account the ground realities particularly in the city of Mumbai where it is difficult to find any place which is 1 km away from either an education institution or a religious institution. This, therefore, amounts to fulfilling an impossible condition and the effect thereof is that, at no place, in Mumbai, licence would be granted. Therefore, this condition is also arbitrary and A B C D E F G H INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 381 unreasonable and is quashed, with liberty to the respondents to prescribe the distance from educational and religious institutions, which is reasonable and workable. [Para 98][459-C-E]

#10. Condition No.2 of Part B imposes an obligation on the employers to the effect that working women, the dancers and waiters/waitresses must be employed under a written contract on a monthly salary and their monthly salary should be deposited in their bank accounts with all the benefits required under the law and the copy of such contracts should be deposited with the licensing authority as well. Insofar as provision relating to entering into a written contract as well as depositing of the remuneration in the bank accounts is concerned, it appears to be justified as it would make the conditions on which such working women, dancers and waiters/waitresses are employed, transparent thereby eliminating or minimising any chances of exploitation or other disputes. However, the condition of employing such persons on monthly salary does not stand the judicial scrutiny. This shows that such persons are to be employed in a particular manner i.e. on monthly basis. There can be other modes of employment permissible in law and the employers have legal right to adopt such modes. For example, it could be employment on contract basis i.e. where the remuneration can be fixed for each performance. Moreover, it impinges upon the rights of such workers as well who may, otherwise, be free to give their performances at more than one place. Therefore, it imposes restriction even upon such employees and infringes their right under Article 19(1)(g). The State Government has failed to show any compelling public interest to curtail the choices of women performers. This part of Condition No. 2 is set aside. The provisions for written contract, deposit of the remuneration in the bank accounts of the employee as well as submission of these written contracts with the licensing authority are appropriate. Rest of the provision is struck down. [Para 99][459-F-H; 460-A- D]

#11. Condition No. 9 of Part B prescribes timing of such dance performances only between 6 pm to 11:30 pm. It is not manifestly unreasonable. Merely because establishments are otherwise open until 1:30 am (next day) or 12:30 am (next day) A B C D E F G H 382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H does not mean that the State has no power to restrict the time of dance performances till 11:30 pm. Even a period of 6 pm to 11:30 pm for dance performances is quite sufficient and substantial as it allows 5½ hours of such performances. [Para 100][460-E-F]

#12. Condition No. 12 of Part B prescribes that no alcohol shall be served in the bar room where dances are staged. This is totally disproportionate, unreasonable and arbitrary. State seems to be more influenced by moralistic overtones under wrong presumption that persons after consuming alcohol would misbehave with the dancers. There may be aberrations or sporadic incidents of this nature which can happen not only at the places where dance performances are staged but at other places including bar rooms and even main restaurants. Other measures have to be adopted to check such a nuance. There cannot be a complete prohibition from serving alcoholic beverages. Therefore, condition No. 12 is quashed. [Para 101][460-F-H; 461- A]

#13. Condition No. 20 of Part B mandating installing of CCTV Cameras is totally inappropriate and amounts to invasion of privacy and is, thus, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. [Para 102][461-B] K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others (2017) 10 SCC 1: [2017] 10 SCR 569 – followed. M.P. AIT Permit Owners Assn. and Another v. State of M.P. (2004) 1 SCC 320 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 331; Engineering Kamgar Union v. Electro Steels Castings Ltd. and Another (2004) 6 SCC 36 : [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 301; Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India and Another (2018) 11 SCC 1 : [2017] 12 SCR 358; State of Maharashtra v. Joyce Zee alias Temiko (1973) ILR 1299 (Bom); Sadhna v. State (1981) 19 DLT 210; Narendra H. Khurana v. Commissioner of Police (2004) 2 Mah LJ 72; Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar & Ors. [1959] SCR 279; State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan & Ors. (1986) 2 SCC 516 : [1986] 1 SCR 707; M/s Laxmi Khandsari & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (1981) 2 SCC 600 : [1981] 3 SCR 92; Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 383 Maharashtra [1965] 1 SCR 65; Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. (1996) 4 SCC 17 : [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 392; Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan & Ors. v. Anand Patwardhan & Anr. (2006) 8 SCC 433 : [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 403; Ajay Goswami v. Union of India & Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 143 : [2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 770; State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala & Anr. [1957] SCR 874; State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department & Ors. v. K. Balu & Anr. (2017) 2 SCC 281 : [2016] 11 SCR 244 – referred to. Feminist Contributions from the Margins: Shifting Conceptions of Work and Performance of the Bar Dancers of Mumbai XLV Econ. & Pol. Weekly (48) 2010; RCWS (SNDT University, Mumbai), ‘Working Women in Mumbai Bars: Truths behind the controversy’ (Jul’ 2005); RCWS (SNDT University, Mumbai), ‘After the Ban – Women Working in Dance Bars’ (Dec’ 2006); Dalwai, Sameena, ‘Performing caste: the ban on bar dancing in Mumbai’ Keele University (2012); Anna Morcom, Courtesans, Bar Girls and Dancing Boys: Illicit Worlds of Indian Dance (Hachette India, 2014); A. Etzioni and E. Etzioni (eds.), Social Change (1964); W. Moore, Social Change (1963), W. Moore and R. Cook (eds.), Readings on Social Change (1967) – referred to. Case Law Reference [2013] 7 SCR 654 relied on Para 6 [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 331 referred to Para 27 [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 301 referred to Para 27 [2017] 12 SCR 358 referred to Para 29 [2017] 10 SCR 569 followed Para 38 (1973) ILR 1299 (Bom) referred to Para 44 (1981) 19 DLT 210 referred to Para 44 A B C D E F G H 384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. A (2004) 2 Mah LJ 72 referred to Para 44 [1959] SCR 279 referred to Para 45 [1986] 1 SCR 707 referred to Para 45 [1981] 3 SCR 92 referred to Para 45 [1965] 1 SCR 65 referred to Para 60 [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 392 referred to Para 61 [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 403 referred to Para 62 [2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 770 referred to Para 63 [1957] SCR 874 referred to Para 70 [2016] 11 SCR 244 referred to Para 70 [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 930 referred to Para 75 [1975] 3 SCR 946 referred to Para 76 (1996) 37 DRJ 352 (DB) referred to Para 87 [1980] 1 SCR 1081 referred to Para 88 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 576 of 2016. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition (C) Nos. 24 and 119 of 2017. WITH Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Mukul Rohatgi, Jayant Bhushan, Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Advs., Prasenjit Keswani, Satyajit Saha, Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Srishti Kumar, Mrs. V. D. Khanna, Manoj K. Mishra, Umesh Dubey, Jyoti Mishra, Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Nikhil Nayyar, Ms. Veena Gowda, N. Sai Vinod, Dhananjay Baijal, Divyanshu Rai, Sandeep Deshmukh, Vasim Siddiqui, Nar Hari Singh, Prateek Rusia, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Mrs. Deepa Kulkarni, Ms. Suvarna Ganu, Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Advs. for the appearing parties. B C D E F G H INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 385 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A. K. SIKRI, J. 1. This batch of three Writ Petitions was heard together and is being disposed of by this Common Judgment as similar issues and prayers are raised in all these petitions.

#2. The instant writ petitions have been preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging certain provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurant and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and also the Rules framed there under being the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurant and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) which, as the Petitioners submit, violate the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 (1)(a), 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

#3. The petitioner No. 1 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 576 of 2016 is an Association of various Hotel Owners and Bar Owners and/or Conductors of the same, who carry on business of running Restaurants and Bars in Mumbai and is duly registered under the Trade Unions Act. Petitioner No. 2 is the secretary of petitioner No. 1 and is a citizen of India, who runs a restaurant and bar. The petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 24 of 2017, R.R. Patil Foundation is a registered Union under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act and the President thereof has been authorised to file the writ petition. The petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 119 of 2017 is the Bhartiya Bargirls Union, registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 and represented through its Hony. President. The petition is filed in a representative capacity on behalf of a large number of women dancers, singers and waitresses.

#4. Respondent No.1 in all the three writ petitions is the State of Maharashtra. The other respondents in the three petitions comprise of various departments/authorities of the State of Maharashtra.

#5. A brief historical description behind enacting this Act and the Rules is as follows: A B C D E F G H 386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. Any person intending to start an Eating House and Restaurant is required to obtain permission from the Municipal Corporation under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act as also the Food and Drugs Administration. After a Grade-I licence is granted to the establishment, and the establishment complies with the requirements under Rules 44 and 45 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 framed under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, the establishment is granted an FL III licence for sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in the Restaurant. Further, persons desiring to serve only Beer in the Restaurant apply for a licence under the Special Permit and Licenses Rules framed under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and are granted licenses in Form ‘E’ for running a Beer Bar. The persons having Eating Houses besides obtaining an FL III or Form ‘E’ licence under the provisions of the relevant Rules framed under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, are required to have licence under the Bombay Police Act, 1951, called the Public Entertainment Licence, from respondent No.2, which is the Licensing Authority under the Rules framed for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Entertainment in Greater Mumbai, 1953. It is stated that the requirement of having multiplicity of licenses is being done away by respondent No.1. Further, any restaurant owner desiring to have music and dance or either music or dance in the restaurant is also required to obtain Premises and Performance Licence under the Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusements (other than Cinemas) and Performances for Public Amusement, including Melas and Tamasha’s Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Amusement Rules’) framed by respondent No.2 under the powers vested in him under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. According to the provisions of Section 33 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, respondent No.2 i.e. the Commissioner of Police has been conferred with the power to frame Rules. The Commissioner of Police can frame Rules for not only licensing and controlling places of public amusement and entertainment but also for taking necessary steps to prevent inconvenience etc. to residents or passers-by or for maintaining public safety and for taking necessary steps in the interests of public order, decency and morality. The Commissioner of Police has accordingly framed Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Entertainment, 1953 and the Amusement Rules. According to the provisions of Chapter 8 of the said Amusement Rules, a Premises Licence is granted after all the requirements prescribed under Rules 108 and A B C D E F G H INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 387 108(A) are complied with. Chapter 9 of the said Amusement Rules prescribes all the conditions for grant of a Performance Licence. As per the petitioners, their members have been granted valid licences under the provisions of the said Entertainment Rules and Amusement Rules and have been carrying on business since the past several years and their licences have been renewed from time to time.

#6. As per the respondent State, it noticed that prostitution rackets were being run in hotel establishments in which dance programmes were being conducted. Even such dance forms were observed as obscene by the State. This resulted in the formation of a Committee for suggestions to deal with aspects mentioned above. After considering guidelines given by the aforesaid Committee and independent studies on socio-economic situations of women involved in dance bars, Section 33A and 33B were added vide Bombay Police Amendment Act, 2005 in Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, (erstwhile Bombay Police Act, 1951) which prohibited any kind of dance performance in an eating house, permit room or beer bar. Section 33B provided an exception to Section 33A, in cases where the dance performance was held in a theatre, or a club where entry was restricted to members only. The said amendment was struck down as unconstitutional by High Court of Bombay and that judgment of the High Court was upheld by this Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Indian Hotel and Restaurants Association & Ors.1 {hereinafter referred to as the ‘Indian Hotel and Restaurants Association (1)’}

#7. Thereafter, the State of Maharashtra introduced a fresh provision vide amendment in the year 2014 referred to as Maharashtra Police (Second Amendment) Act, 2014 and added Section 33A to the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, while Section 33B came to be deleted. A petition bearing Writ Petition (Civil) No.793 of 2014 came to be filed in this Court, on behalf of Indian Hotel and Restaurants Association under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, whereby the Maharashtra Police (Second Amendment) Act, 2014 vide which vires of Section 33A, came to be challenged on the ground of the same being violative of Article 14, 19 (1)(a), 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court issued notice in the above writ petition and respondent State of Maharashtra filed a counter affidavit, thereby opposing the writ petition. This Court, vide order dated October 15, 2015, stayed the operation of 1 (2013) 8 SCC 519 A B C D E F G H 388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. the provisions enshrined under Section 33A(1) of the Act with a rider that no performance of dance shall remotely be expressive of any kind of obscenity. It is, thereafter, that respondent No. 1 enacted the impugned Act and the Rules, certain provisions whereof have been challenged in these petitions. In view of the developments, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 793 of 2014 was disposed of as infructuous. The impugned Act and the Rules:

#8. The Preamble to the Act mentions that it is an Act to provide for prohibition of obscene dance in hotels, restaurants, bar rooms and other establishments and to improve the conditions of work, protect the dignity and safety of women in such places with a view to prevent their exploitation. The Act extends to the whole of the State of Maharashtra. Section 2 of the Act provides definitions to certain terms and the relevant among these are reproduced below: “2(3) “bar room” means a place, to which the owner or proprietor admits the public and where dances are staged by or at the instance of the owner or proprietor of such establishment for the entertainment of customers; (4) “dancer” means any artist performing dance on the stage or in any part of the premises; (8) “obscene dance” means a dance that is obscene within the meaning of Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code and any other law for the time being in force and shall include a dance, - (i) which is designed only to arouse the prurient interest of the audience; and (ii) which consists of a sexual act, lascivious movements, gestures for the purpose of sexual propositioning or indicating the availability of sexual access to the dancer, or in the course of which, the dancer exposes his or her genitals or, if a female, is topless; (10) “place” includes a establishment, house, building, tent and any means of transport whether by sea, land or air;”

#9. As per Section 3, no person is entitled to start hotel, restaurant, bar room or any other place where dances are staged, without obtaining a licence under this Act and without complying with the conditions and restrictions imposed by the Act and the Rules. Section 4 mentions licensing A B C D E F G H INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 389 authority, competent to grant licence. Section 5 stipulates certain conditions which are to be fulfilled in the absence whereof licensing authority is not to grant licence under the Act. It reads as under: “5. The licensing authority shall not grant licence under this Act unless it is satisfied that,- (a) the conditions prescribed by this Act and the Rules have been complied with by the applicant, (b) adequate conditions of work and provisions for safety in respect of women employed in the hotel, restaurant or bar room as prescribed have been provided, and (c) adequate precautions have been taken in the place, in respect of which the licence is to be given, to provide for the safety of the persons visiting such place.”

#10. Section 6 lays down the procedure for grant of licence. For this purpose, any person desirous to obtain the licence will have to move an application as per the format prescribed and fulfill the eligibility criteria as prescribed. As per sub-section (4) of Section 6 the licensing authority is not supposed to grant licence for the place for which a licence for Discotheque or Orchestra have been granted. Exact language of this sub-section (4) is as under: “(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Maharashtra Police Act, no licence shall be granted for Discotheque or Orchestra, in the place for which the licence under this Act is granted, nor a licence shall be granted under this Act for the place for which a licence for Discotheque or Orchestra has been granted.”

#11. Section 8 prescribes criminal and civil consequences for using the place in contravention of Section 3 i.e. without obtaining the licence. It is to the following effect: “8(1) The owner or proprietor or manager or any person acting on his behalf, who uses the place in contravention of section 3 shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or fine which may extend to rupees twenty-five lakhs, or with both; and in case of continuing offence, further fine of rupees twenty-five thousand for each day during which the offence continues. A B C D E F G H 390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H (2) The owner or proprietor or manager or any person acting on his behalf, shall not allow any obscene dance or exploit any working woman for any immoral purpose in any place and the person committing such act shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or a fine which may extend to rupees ten lakhs, or with both; and in case of continuing offence, further fine which may extend to rupees ten thousand for each day during which the offence continues. (3) The offences under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be cognizable and non-bailable and triable by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. (4) No person shall throw or shower coins, currency notes or any article or anything which can be monetized on the stage or hand over personally or through any means coins, currency notes or any article or anything which can be monetized, to a dancer or misbehave or indecently behave with the working women or touch her person, in any place. Any person who commits such act or abets the commission of such acts shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or a fine which may extend to rupees fifty thousand, or with both. (5) The offence punishable under sub-section (4) shall be non- cognizable and bailable and triable by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. (6) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act for which no other punishment has been provided, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or fine which may extend to rupees twenty- five thousand, or with both.”

#12. The provisions are also made for appeal, revision etc. against the order of the licensing authority refusing to grant licence. As per Section 12, Grievance Redressal Committee is to be constituted by the State Government to ensure that the conditions of service of women working in the hotel, restaurant, bar rooms and establishment to which the provisions of this Act apply are duly observed. This Committee is given the task to redress the grievances of such women in such manner as may be prescribed. INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 391

#13. We may mention here that challenge in these writ petitions is laid to the provisions of Sections 2(8)(i), Section 6(4), Section 8(1)(2) and (4) of the Act.

#14. Section 14 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act for which notification in the Official Gazette is to be issued. These rules are to be laid before each House of the State Legislature. Section 15 gives powers to the State Government to issue orders in case any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of the Act.

#15. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 14 of the Act, Rules have been framed. Rule 3 pertains to the application for licence and lays down the conditions for making such an application. It is couched in the following language: “3. Application for licence. - A person shall be entitled to obtain or hold a licence under these Rules, if he,- (i) has attained 21 years of age; A B C D (ii) is a citizen of India or a partner of partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 or a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or the Companies Act, 2013; (iii) possess a good character and antecedents and shall not have any history of criminal record in the past: E Provided that, the licensing authority shall consider the history of criminal record of the applicant upto ten years before the date of application; and (iv) complies with the conditions specified in Part-A of the Schedule.” F

#16. Schedule attached to the Rules mentions the conditions which are to be complied with. Part A thereof stipulates those conditions which are to be fulfilled before grant of licence whereas Part B stipulates the conditions which are to be fulfilled after grant of licence. It is not necessary to reproduce all those conditions. Since, condition Nos. 2 and 11 of Part A and condition Nos. 2, 6, 9, 12, 16, 17 and 20 of Part B are the subject matter of challenge in these petitions, we are reproducing these conditions hereinbelow: G H 392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. “SCHEDULE General Conditions PART-A Conditions to be complied before grant of Lincence

#2. One stage should not be less than 10ft. x 12ft. in size in bar room, with non-transparent partition between hotel, restaurant and bar room area. If the applicant is holding permit room licence then there shall be fixed partition between the permit room and dance room.

#11. The place shall be at least one kilometer away from the educational and religious institutions. PART-B Conditions to be fulfilled after grant of Licence

#2. The working women, the dancers and waiters/ waitresses must be employed under a written contract on a monthly salary to be deposited in their bank accounts (with all other benefits as required by law, including provident fund) and a copy of such contract must be deposited with the licensing authority.

#6. Customer shall not be permitted to thrown or shower coins, currency notes or any article or anything which can be monetized on the stage in the direction of the dancer. Customers may, however, make payment of a tip in appreciation of all the dancers by adding a sum to the amount of the bill. Such tip shall be paid by the licensee to the dancers of that evening and under no circumstances such sum shall be deducted from the monthly salary.

#9. The bar room where dances are staged shall be open for public only between 6.00 P.M. to 11.30 P.M.

#12. No alcoholic beverage shall be served in the bar room where dances are staged. A B C D E F G H INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 393

#16. The Licensee shall ensure that the employees have no criminal antecedents.

#17. The Licensee shall not allow any modification or alternation in the premises without the permission of the licensing authority.

#20. The Licensee shall ensure that all entrances of the bar room, other places of amusement or public entertainment and the area which falls under the definition of public place shall be covered by CCTV cameras and recording shall be preserved for 30 days for the inspection by the Competent Police Authority, if it is requisitioned by him.”

#17. Before we advert to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioners on the basis of which validity of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Rules is questioned, it would be necessary to discuss the judgment of this Court rendered in 2013 in the case of Indian Hotel and Restaurants Association (1). The reason for this course of action is that many arguments of the petitioners proceed on the basis that some of the provisions in the Acts and the Rules are akin to Sections 33A and 33B which were inserted vide Bombay Police Amendment Act, 2005 in Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Even otherwise, the reasoning contained in the said judgment on the basis of which the aforesaid provisions were struck down was heavily relied upon by the petitioners.

#18. Indian Hotel and Restaurants Association (1) As already noted above, any person intending to start an eating house and restaurant is required to have certain licenses under the Bombay Police Act which is known as public entertainment licence. Likewise, any restaurant owner desirous to have music or dance or either music or dance in the restaurant is further required to obtain Premises and Performance Licence under the Amusement Rules. This power to give licence is vested with the Commissioner of Police as per Section 33 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Sections 33A and 33B were added by Amendment Act, 2005. These provisions along with Statement of Objects and Reasons are as under: “Statement of Objects and Reasons A B C D E F G H 394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H

#21. The Statement of Objects and Reasons clause appended to Bill No. 40 of 2005 as introduced in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on 14-6-2005 reads as under: “(1) The Commissioner of Police, District Magistrates or other officers, being Licensing Authorities under the Rules framed in exercise of the powers of sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 have granted licences for holding dance performance in the area under their respective charges in the State. The object of granting such performance licence is to hold such dance performance for public amusement. It is brought to the notice of the State Government that the eating houses or permit rooms or beer bars to whom licences to hold dance performance, have been granted are permitting the performance of dances in an indecent, obscene or vulgar manner. It has also been brought to the notice of the Government that such performance of dances are giving rise to exploitation of women. The Government has received several complaints regarding the manner of holding such dance performances. The Government considers that the performance of dances in eating houses, permit rooms or beer bars in an indecent manner is derogatory to the dignity of women and is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals. The Government considers it expedient to prohibit the holding of such dance performances in eating houses or permit rooms or beer bars. (2) In the last Budget Session of the State Legislature, by way of a calling attention motion, the attention of the Government was invited to mushroom growth of illegal dance bars and their ill effects on the society in general including ruining of families. The members of the State Legislature, from ruling and opposition sides, pointed out that such dance bars are used as meeting points by criminals and pick-up joints of girls for indulging in immoral activities and demanded that such dance bars should, therefore, be closed down. These dance bars are attracting young girls desirous of earning easy money and thereby such girls are involved in immoral activities. Having considered the complaints received from general public including the people’s representatives, the Government considers it expedient to prohibit the performance of dance, of any kind or type, in an eating house INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 395 or permit room or beer bar, throughout the State by suitably amending the Bombay Police Act, 1951. However, a provision is also made to the effect that holding of a dance performance in a drama theatre or cinema theatre or auditorium; registered sports club or gymkhana; or three-starred or above hotel; or in any other establishment or class establishments which the State Government may specify having regard to tourism policy for promotion of tourism in the State or cultural activities, are not barred but all such establishments shall be required to obtain performance licence in accordance with the said Rules, for holding a dance performance.

#3. The Bill is intended to achieve the following objectives. 33-A.Prohibition of performance of dance in eating house, permit room or beer bar and other consequential provisions.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Rules made by the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate under sub-section (1) of Section 33 for the area under their respective charges, on and from the date of commencement of the Bombay Police (Amendment) Act, 2005— (a) holding of a performance of dance, of any kind or type, in any eating house, permit room or beer bar is prohibited; (b) all performance licences, issued under the aforesaid Rules by the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate or any other officer, as the case may be, being the licensing authority, to hold a dance performance, of any kind or type, in an eating house, permit room or beer bar shall stand cancelled. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 131, any person who holds or causes or permits to be held a dance performance of any kind or type, in an eating house, permit room or beer bar in contravention of sub-section (1), shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to rupees two lakhs: Provided that, in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be less than three months and fine shall not be less than rupees fifty thousand. A B C D E F G H 396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H (3) If it is noticed by the licensing authority that any person, whose performance licence has been cancelled under sub-section (1), holds or causes to be held or permits to hold a dance performance of any kind or type in his eating house, permit room or beer bar, the licensing authority shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules framed under Section 33, suspend the certificate of registration as an eating house and the licence to keep a place of public entertainment (PPEL) issued to permit room or a beer bar and within a period of 30 days from the date of suspension of the certificate of registration and licence, after giving the licensee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, either withdraw the order of suspending the certificate of registration and the licence or cancel the certificate of registration and the licence. (4)-(5) (6) The offence punishable under this section shall be cognizable and non-bailable. 33-B. Non-applicability of the provisions of Section 33-A in certain cases.—Subject to the other provisions of this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, nothing in Section 33- A shall apply to the holding of a dance performance in a drama theatre, cinema theatre and auditorium; or sports club or gymkhana, where entry is restricted to its members only, or a three-starred or above hotel or in any other establishment or class of establishments, which, having regard to (a) the tourism policy of the Central or State Government for promoting the tourism activities in the State; or (b) cultural activities, the State Government may, by special or general order, specify in this behalf. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, ‘sports club’ or ‘gymkhana’ means an establishment registered as such under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, or the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or the Companies Act, 1956, or any other law for the time being in force.”

#19. It is the validity of these provisions which was the subject matter of the appeals before the Supreme Court as Bombay High Court had declared these provisions as unconstitutional, being violative of INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 397 Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It may be noted that in the writ petitions filed in the High Court, these provisions were challenged as violative of Articles 15(1) and 21 as well. However, challenge on these grounds was repelled by the High Court. The High Court had held that these provisions suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as they provide for different standards of morality to institutions with similar activities and the activities in Section 33A establishments are less obscene but nonetheless the classification bears no nexus to the object of the Amendment. It was also held that there is a violation of Article 19(1)(a) as dance is a form of expression and the impugned enactment is unreasonable restriction which is not protective by Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Further, these provisions amount to an unreasonable restriction on the right to freedom of profession as the State Government permitted and granted licenses for running such establishments being res commercium and that it deprives the bar owners on their right to carry on their profession and bar dancers to carry on their profession.

#20. While upholding the decision of the High Court founded on invidious discrimination and, as such, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, this Court, inter alia, stated the following reasons: “118. The High Court, in our opinion, has rightly declined to rely upon the PRAYAS and Shubhada Chaukar’s Reports. The number of respondents interviewed was so miniscule as to render both the studies meaningless. As noticed earlier, the subsequent report submitted by SNDT University has substantially contradicted the conclusions reached by the other two reports. The situation herein is not similar to the circumstances which led to the decision in Radice [68 L Ed 690 : 264 US 292 (1924)] . In that case, a New York statute was challenged as it prohibited employment of women in restaurants in cities of first and second class between hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., on the ground of: (1) due process clause, by depriving the employer and employee of their liberty to contract, and (2) the equal protection clause, by an unreasonable and arbitrary classification. The Court upheld the legislation on the first ground that the State had come to the conclusion that night work prohibited, so injuriously threatens to impair women’s peculiar and natural functions. Such work, according to the State, exposes women to the dangers and menaces incidental to nightlife in large A B C D E F G H 398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H cities. Therefore, it was permissible to enable the police to preserve and promote the public health and welfare. The aforesaid conclusion was, however, based on one very important factor which was that: (Radice case [68 L Ed 690 : 264 US 292 (1924)] , L Ed p. 694) “The legislature had before it a mass of information from which it concluded that night work is substantially and especially detrimental to the health of women.” In our opinion, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, in the present case, there was little or no material on the basis of which the State could have concluded that dancing in the prohibited establishments was likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals.

#119. The next justification for the so-called intelligible differentia is on the ground that women who perform in the banned establishment are a vulnerable lot. They come from grossly deprived backgrounds. According to the appellants, most of them are trafficked into bar dancing. We are unable to accept the aforesaid submission. A perusal of the Objects and Reasons would show that the impugned legislation proceed on a hypothesis that different dance bars are being used as meeting points of criminals and pick-up points of the girls. But the Objects and Reasons say nothing about any evidence having been presented to the Government that these dance bars are actively involved in trafficking of women. In fact, this plea with regard to trafficking of women was projected for the first time in the affidavit filed before the High Court. The aforesaid plea seems to have been raised only on the basis of the reports which were submitted after the ban was imposed. We have earlier noticed the extracts from the various reports. In our opinion, such isolated examples would not be sufficient to establish the connection of the dance bars covered under Section 33-A with trafficking. We, therefore, reject the submission of the appellants that the ban has been placed for the protection of the vulnerable women.

#120. The next justification given by the learned counsel for the appellants is on the basis of degree of harm which is being caused to the atmosphere in the banned establishments and the INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 399 surrounding areas. Undoubtedly as held by this Court in Ram Krishna Dalmia case [AIR 1958 SC 538] , the legislature is free to recognise the degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest. We also agree with the observations of the US Court in Patsone case [58 L Ed 539 : 232 US 138 (1914)] that the State may direct its law against what it deems the evil as it actually exists without covering the whole field of possible abuses, but such conclusion have to be reached either on the basis of general consensus shared by the majority of the population or on the basis of empirical data. In our opinion, the State neither had the empirical data to conclude that dancing in the prohibited establishment necessarily leads to depravity and corruption of public morals nor was there general consensus that such was the situation. The three reports presented before the High Court in fact have presented divergent viewpoints. Thus, the observations made in Patsone [58 L Ed 539 : 232 US 138 (1914)] are not of any help to the appellant. We are also conscious of the observations made by this Court in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi [AIR 1958 SC 731] , wherein it was held that there is a presumption that the legislature understands and appreciates the needs of its people and that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds. In the present case, the appellant has failed to give any details of any experience which would justify such blatant discrimination, based purely on the class or location of an establishment.

#121. We are of the opinion that the State has failed to justify the classification between the exempted establishments and prohibited establishments on the basis of surrounding circumstances, or vulnerability. Undoubtedly, the legislature is the best judge to measure the degree of harm and make reasonable classification but when such a classification is challenged the State is duty- bound to disclose the reasons for the ostensible conclusions. In our opinion, in the present case, the legislation is based on an unacceptable presumption that the so-called elite i.e. rich and the famous would have higher standards of decency, morality or strength of character than their counterparts who have to content themselves with lesser facilities of inferior quality in the dance bars. Such a presumption is abhorrent to the resolve in the A B C D E F G H 400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H Preamble of the Constitution to secure the citizens of India “equality of status and opportunity and dignity of the individual”. The State Government presumed that the performance of an identical dance item in the establishments having facilities less than three stars would be derogative to the dignity of women and would be likely to deprave, corrupt or injure public morality or morals; but would not be so in the exempted establishments. These are misconceived notions of a bygone era which ought not to be resurrected.

#122. Incongruously, the State does not find it to be indecent, immoral or derogatory to the dignity of women if they take up other positions in the same establishments such as receptionist, waitress or bartender. The women who serve liquor and beer to customers do not arouse lust in customers but women dancing would arouse lust. In our opinion, if a certain kind of dance is sensuous in nature and if it causes sexual arousal in men it cannot be said to be more in the prohibited establishments and less in the exempted establishments. Sexual arousal and lust in men and women and degrees thereof, cannot be said to be monopolised by the upper or the lower classes. Nor can it be presumed that sexual arousal would generate different character or behaviour, depending on the social strata of the audience. History is replete with examples of crimes of lust committed in the highest echelons of the society as well as in the lowest levels of society. The High Court has rightly observed, relying on the observations of this Court in Gaurav Jain v. Union of India [(1997) 8 SCC 114 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 25] that: (Indian Hotel and Restaurants Assn. Case [(2006) 3 Bom CR 705] , Bom Cr p. 744, para 48) “48. ‘27.… Prostitution in five-star hotels is a licence given to persons from higher echelons.’ (Gaurav Jain case [(1997) 8 SCC 114 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 25] , SCC p. 132, para 27)”

#21. Likewise, arguments of the State questioning the opinion of the High Court as the provisions to be ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) were rejected by this Court with the following discussion: “126. Upon analysing the entire fact situation, the High Court has held that dancing would be a fundamental right and cannot be excluded by dubbing the same as res extra commercium. The State has failed to establish that the restriction is reasonable or that it is in the interest of general public. The High Court rightly INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 401 scrutinised the impugned legislation in the light of observations of this Court made in Narendra Kumar [AIR 1960 SC 430 : (1960) 2 SCR 375] , wherein it was held that greater the restriction, the more the need for scrutiny. The High Court noticed that in the guise of regulation, the legislation has imposed a total ban on dancing in the establishments covered under Section 33-A. The High Court has also concluded that the legislation has failed to satisfy the doctrine of direct and inevitable effect. (See Maneka Gandhi case [(1978) 1 SCC 248] .) We see no reason to differ with the conclusions recorded by the High Court. We agree with Mr Rohatgi and Dr Dhavan that there are already sufficient rules and regulations and legislation in place which, if efficiently applied, would control if not eradicate all the dangers to the society enumerated in the Preamble and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the impugned legislation.

#127. The activities of the eating houses, permit rooms and beer bars are controlled by the following regulations: (i) The Bombay Municipal Corporation Act; (ii) The Bombay Police Act, 1951; (iii) The Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949; (iv) The Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Entertainment, 1953; (v) The Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement other than Cinemas; A B C D E (vi) And other orders as are passed by the Government from time to time. F

#128. The restaurants/dance bar owners also have to obtain licences/permissions as listed below: (i) Licence and registration for eating house under the Bombay Police Act, 1951; (ii) Licence under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 and the rules made thereunder; (iii) Eating house licence under Sections 394, 412-A, 313 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; G H 402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. (iv) Health licence under the Maharashtra Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1962; (v) Health licence under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 for serving liquor; (vi) Performance licence under Rules 118 of the Amusement Rules, 1960; (vii) Premises licence under Rule 109 of the Amusement Rules; (viii) Licence to keep a place of public entertainment under Section 33(1) clauses (w) and (y) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and the said Entertainment Rules; (ix) FL III licence under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and Rule 45 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 or a Form E licence under the Special Permits and Licences Rules for selling or serving IMFL and beer; (x) Suitability certificate under the Amusement Rules.

#129. Before any of the licences are granted, the applicant has to fulfill the following conditions: (i) Any application for premises licence shall be accompanied by the site plan indicating inter alia the distance of the site from any religious, educational institution or hospital. (ii) The distance between the proposed place of amusement and the religious place or hospital or educational institution shall be more than 75 m. (iii) The proposed place of amusement shall not have been located in the congested and thickly populated area. (iv) The proposed site must be located on a road having width of more than 10 m. (v) The owners/partners of the proposed place of amusement must not have been arrested or detained for anti-social or any such activities or convicted for any such offences. (vi) The distance between two machines which are to be installed in the video parlour shall be reflected in the plan. A B C D E F G H INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 403 (vii) No similar place of public amusement exists within a radius of 75 m. A (viii) The conditions mentioned in the licence shall be observed throughout the period for which the licence is granted and if there is a breach of any one of the conditions, the licence is likely to be cancelled after following the usual procedure.

#130. The aforesaid list, enactments and regulations are further supplemented with the regulations protecting the dignity of women. The provisions of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and more particularly Section 33(1)(w) of the said Act empowers the licensing authority to frame rules: “licensing or controlling places of public amusement or entertainment and also for taking necessary steps to prevent inconvenience to residents or passers-by or for maintaining public safety and for taking necessary steps in the interests of public order, decency and morality.”

#131. Rules 122 and 123 of the Amusement Rules, 1960 also prescribe conditions for holding performances: “122.Acts prohibited by the holder of a performance licence.—No person holding a performance licence under these Rules shall, in the beginning, during any interval or at the end of any performance, or during the course of any performance, exhibition, production, display or staging, permit or himself commit on the stage or any part of the auditorium— (a) any profanity or impropriety of language; (b) any indecency of dress, dance, movement or gesture; Similar conditions and restrictions are also prescribed under the performance licence: *** The licensee shall not, at any time before, during the course of or subsequent to any performance, exhibition, production, display or staging, permit or himself commit on the stage or in any part of the auditorium or outside it: B C D E F G H 404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H (i) any exhibition or advertisement whether by way of posters or in the newspapers, photographs of nude or scantily dressed women; (ii) any performance at a place other than the place provided for the purpose; (iii) any mixing of the cabaret performers with the audience or any physical contact by touch or otherwise with any member of the audience; (iv) any act specifically prohibited by the Rules.”

#132. The Rules under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 have been framed in the interest of public safety and social welfare and to safeguard the dignity of women as well as prevent exploitation of women. There is no material placed on record by the State to show that it was not possible to deal with the situation within the framework of the existing laws except for the unfounded conclusions recorded in the Preamble as well as the Statement of Objects and Reasons. [See State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat [(2005) 8 SCC 534 : AIR 2006 SC 212] wherein it is held that: (SCC p. 573, para 75) the standard of judging reasonability of restriction or restriction amounting to prohibition remains the same, excepting that a total prohibition must also satisfy the test that a lesser alternative would be inadequate.] The Regulations framed under Section 33(1)(w) of the Bombay Police Act, more so Regulations 238 and 242 provide that the licensing authority may suspend or cancel a licence for any breach of the licence conditions. Regulation 241 empowers the licensing authority or any authorised police officer, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, to direct the stoppage of any performance forthwith if the performance is found to be objectionable. Section 162 of the Bombay Police Act empowers a competent authority/Police Commissioner/ District Magistrate to suspend or revoke a licence for breach of its conditions. Thus, sufficient power is vested with the licensing authority to safeguard any perceived violation of the dignity of women through obscene dances.

#133. From the objects of the impugned legislation and amendment itself, it is crystal clear that the legislation was brought about on INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 405 the admission of the police that it is unable to effectively control the situation in spite of the existence of all the necessary legislation, rules and regulations. One of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants was to the effect that it is possible to control the performances which are conducted in the establishments falling within Section 33-B; the reasons advanced for the aforesaid only highlight the stereotype myths that people in upper strata of society behave in orderly and moralistic manner. There is no independent empirical material to show that propensity of immorality or depravity would be any less in these high-class establishments. On the other hand, it is the specific submission of the appellants that the activities conducted within the establishments covered under Section 33-A have the effect of vitiating the atmosphere not only within the establishments but also in the surrounding locality. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, during dance in the bars the dancers wore deliberately provocative dresses. The dance becomes even more provocative and sensual when such behaviour is mixed with alcohol. It has the tendency to lead to undesirable results. Reliance was placed upon State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala [AIR 1957 SC 699], Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(1995) 1 SCC 574], State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. [(2004) 11 SCC 26], New York State Liquor Authority v. Bellanca [69 L Ed 2d 357 : 452 US 714 (1981)] and R. v. Quinn [(1962) 2 QB 245 : (1961) 3 WLR 611 : (1961) 3 All ER 88 (CCA)] to substantiate the aforesaid submissions. Therefore, looking at the degree of harm caused by such behaviour, the State enacted the impugned legislation.

#134. We are undoubtedly bound by the principles enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid cases, but these are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Khoday Distilleries Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 574] , it was held that there is no fundamental right inter alia to do trafficking in women or in slaves or to carry on business of exhibiting and publishing pornographic or obscene films and literature. This case is distinguishable because of the unfounded presumption that women are being/ were trafficked in the bars. State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd.[(2004) 11 SCC 26] dealt with liquor trade, whereas A B C D E F G H 406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. the present case is clearly different. The reliance on New York State Liquor Authority [69 L Ed 2d 357 : 452 US 714 (1981)] is completely unfounded because in that case endeavour of the State was directed towards prohibiting topless dancing in an establishment licensed to serve liquor. Similarly, R. v. Quinn [(1962) 2 QB 245 : (1961) 3 WLR 611 : (1961) 3 All ER 88 (CCA)] dealt with indecent performances in a disorderly house. Hence, this case will also not help the appellants. Therefore, we are not impressed with any of these submissions. All the activities mentioned above can be controlled under the existing regulations.

#135. We do not agree with the submission of Mr Subramanium that the impugned enactment is a form of additional regulation, as it was felt that the existing system of licence and permits were insufficient to deal with problem of ever-increasing dance bars. We also do not agree with the submissions that whereas exempted establishments are held to standards higher than those prescribed; the eating houses, permit rooms and dance bars operate beyond/ below the control of the regulations. Another justification given is that though it may be possible to regulate these permit rooms and dance bars which are located within Mumbai, it would not be possible to regulate such establishments in the semi-urban and rural parts of the Maharashtra. If that is so, it is a sad reflection on the efficiency of the licensing/regulatory authorities in implementing the legislation.

#136. The end result of the prohibition of any form of dancing in the establishments covered under Section 33-A leads to the only conclusion that these establishments have to shut down. This is evident from the fact that since 2005, most if not all the dance bar establishments have been literally closed down. This has led to the unemployment of over 75,000 women workers. It has been brought on the record that many of them have been compelled to take up prostitution out of necessity for maintenance of their families. In our opinion, the impugned legislation has proved to be totally counter-productive and cannot be sustained being ultra vires Article 19(1)(g).” A B C D E F G H INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 407 Submissions of the petitioners: 22. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel began his submissions with a fervent plea that the respondent State was bent upon banning altogether dance performances in the bars/permit homes or restaurants etc. His argument was that earlier two attempts of identical nature made by the respondents failed to pass the constitutional muster. The provisions of Sections 33A and 33B inserted vide Amendment Act, 2005 to the Bombay Police Act, 1951 had been struck down as unconstitutional being in contravention of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. In spite thereof, the State did not grant licences to any person including the petitioners. This deliberate inaction on the part of the State led to filing of the contempt petition by the petitioners in which notice was issued on May 05, 2014. After receiving the notice in the said contempt petition, the State brought on the statute book Section 33A in another avtar by amendment Act on June 25, 2014. According to the petitioners, it was verbatim similar to Section 33A which was already held unconstitutional and it is, for this reason, in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 793 of 2014 wherein constitutionality of this provision was challenged, this Court passed orders dated October 15, 2015 staying the operation of newly added Section 33A of the Bombay Police Act. Thereafter, on November 26, 2015, this Court directed licences to be granted in two weeks. In order to frustrate the aforesaid directions of this Court, respondents came up with 26 new conditions for grant of licence. As the petitioners had objection to some of the conditions, another application was moved in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9793 of 2014. After orders dated March 02, 2016 were passed by the Court modifying some of the said 26 conditions, on April 18, 2016, this Court granted one week time to the respondents to comply with its directions. Again, with intention to frustrate the effect of the judgment of this Court, the respondents passed the impugned legislation and also framed impugned rules thereunder.

#23. Mr. Bhushan further pointed out that even when certain orders were passed by the Supreme Court for issuance of the licence and for processing other applications on the principle of parity, till date not a single licence has been issued to any of the petitioners/members of the association. All this amply shows that the only intention of the State is to put an absolute ban on dance bars, as the respondent State is ensuring that licences are rejected on one ground or the other. He also endeavoured to demonstrate this by reading the orders passed by the State rejecting each and every application that has been made for grant of licence even under the new Act and Rules. A B C D E F G H 408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H

#24. Mr. Bhushan specifically referred to the following passage from the earlier judgment wherein plea of public interest or morality was repelled: “53. With regard as to whether there is any infringement of rights under Article 19(1)(g), it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to practise any profession, trade or occupation is subject to restrictions in Article 19(6). Therefore, by prohibiting dancing under Section 33-A, no right of the bar owners are being infringed. The curbs imposed by Sections 33-A and 33-B only restrict the owners of the prohibited establishments from permitting dances to be conducted in the interest of general public. The term “interest of general public” is a wide concept and embraces public order and public morality. The reliance in support of this proposition was placed on State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat [(2005) 8 SCC 534 : AIR 2006 SC 212]. Reference was also made to Municipal Corpn. of the City of Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai [(1986) 3 SCC 20], wherein this Court gave a wide meaning to “interest of general public” and observed as follows: (SCC p. 31, para 19) “19. The expression ‘in the interest of general public’ is of wide import comprehending public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution.”

#55. The SNDT Report also shows that only 17.40% of the bar girls are from the State of Maharashtra. The bar owners have been exploiting the girls by sharing the tips received and also capitalising on their performance to serve liquor and improve the sales and business. Again reliance is placed on the observations made in PRAYASReport at p. 47 which is as under: “The women working as either dancers or waiters were not paid any salary, but were dependent on tips given by customers in the bar, which varies from day to day and from women to another. This money is often shared with the bar owner as per a fixed ratio ranging from 30 to 60%.” INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 409

#59. It was next submitted that the High Court wrongly concluded that the activity of young girls/women being introduced as bar dancers is not res extra commercium. Such activity by the young girls is a dehumanising process. In any event, trafficking the girls into bar dancing completely lacks the element of conscious selection of profession. An activity which has harmful effects on the society cannot be classified as a profession or trade for protection under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Such dances which are obscene and immoral would have to be considered as an activity which is res extra commercium. The High Court has wrongly concluded otherwise. Reliance is also placed on the observations made by this Court in State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala [AIR 1957 SC 699] . In that case, it was observed by this Court that activity of gambling could not be raised to the status of trade, commerce or intercourse and to be made subject-matter of a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g).

#72. The same principle was reiterated by this Court in State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. [(1997) 2 SCC 453] in the following words: (SCC p. 466, para 17) “17. … The approach of the court, while examining the challenge to the constitutionality of an enactment, is to start with the presumption of constitutionality. The court should try to sustain its validity to the extent possible. It should strike down the enactment only when it is not possible to sustain it. The court should not approach the enactment with a view to pick holes or to search for defects of drafting, much less inexactitude of language employed. Indeed, any such defects of drafting should be ironed out as part of attempt to sustain the validity/constitutionality of the enactment. After all, an Act made by the legislature represents the will of the people and that cannot be lightly interfered with. The unconstitutionality must be plainly and clearly established before an enactment is declared as void.” A B C D E F G H 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.

#85. Mr Rohatgi submits that the impugned legislation has achieved the opposite result. Instead of creating fresh job opportunities for women it takes away whatever job opportunities are already available to them. He emphasised that the ban also has an adverse social impact. The loss of livelihood of bar dancers has put them in a very precarious situation to earn the livelihood. Mr Rohatgi submitted that the dancers merely imitate the dance steps and movements of Hindi movie actresses. They wear traditional clothes such as ghagra cholis, sarees and salwar kameez. On the other hand, the actresses in movies wear revealing clothes: shorts, swimming costumes and revealing dresses. Reverting to the reliance placed by the appellants on the PRAYAS Report and Shubhada Chaukar Report, Mr Rohatgi submitted that both the reports are of no value, especially in the case of PRAYAS Report which is based on interviews conducted with only few girls. The SNDT Report actually indicates that there is no organised racket that brings women to the dance bars. The girls’ interview, in fact, indicated that they came to the dance bars through family, community, neighbours and street knowledge. Therefore, according to Mr Rohatgi, the allegations with regard to trafficking to the dance bars by middlemen are without any basis. Most of the girls who performed dance are generally illiterate and do not have any formal education. They also do not have any training or skills in dancing. This clearly rendered them virtually unemployable in any other job. He, therefore, submits that the SNDT Report is contradictory to the PRAYAS Report. Thus, the State had no reliable data on the basis of which the impugned legislation was enacted.”

#25. Adverting specifically to those provisions of the Act and the Rules which have been challenged as unconstitutional, Mr. Bhushan submitted that insofar as Section 2(8)(i) is concerned, the definition of ‘obscene dance’ contained therein is totally vague. He argued that this definition of ‘obscene dance’ includes ‘a dance which is designed only to arouse the prurient interest of the audience’, which was totally loose expression incapable of any precise meaning.

#26. It was submitted that such a definition was susceptible to various perceptions depending upon the subjective opinion of the concerned persons and, therefore, different persons may reach different conclusions after seeing the same dance performance. According to A B C D E F G H INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 411 Mr. Bhushan, when obscene dance is made as an offence under the Act, a vague definition of this term was anathema to the principles of criminology and was opposed to the rule of law.

#27. Another provision, validity whereof is questioned on the premise that the same is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, is Section 6(4) of the Act. This provision bars the grant of licence under the Act in respect of a place where licence for discotheque or orchestra is granted. Conversely, it also prohibits grant of licence for discotheque or orchestra where licence under this Act is granted. Simply put, the purport behind this provision is to see that in respect of a particular place either licence is granted for dance bars or for discotheque and orchestra and there would not be a licence for a place, both for dance bars and discotheque or orchestra, at the same time. It was submitted that there was no rational behind such a provision based on intelligible differentia. Reference was made to the judgment in M.P. AIT Permit Owners Assn. and Another v. State of M.P.2, which was relied upon in the subsequent judgment in Engineering Kamgar Union v. Electro Steels Castings Ltd. and Another3 wherein it was held as under: “21. The Central Act and the State Act indisputably cover the same field. The jurisdiction of the State Legislature to enact a law by a parliamentary legislation is not impermissible. Subject to the provisions contained in Article 254 of the Constitution of India, both will operate in their respective fields. The constitutional scheme in this behalf is absolutely clear and unambiguous. In this case, this Court is not concerned with the conflicting legislations operating in the same field by reason of enactments made by Parliament and the State in exercise of their respective legislative powers contained in List I and List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India but admittedly the field being the same, a question would arise as regards the effect of one Act over the other in the event it is found that there exists a conflict. For the said purpose, it is not necessary that the conflict would be direct only in a case wherein the provisions of one Act would have to be disobeyed if the provisions of the other are followed. The conflict may exist even where both the laws lead to different legal results.