Date: 17 January, 2019
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 576 OF 2016
Writ Petition (Civil) No.793 of 2014
Equivalent citations: AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 589, AIRONLINE 2019 SC 24
| Dance Bar Case Association Of Hotel & Restaurant V/S State Of Maharashtra | Facts: Maharashtra Police Act was Amended which banned Dance bars in Maharashtra. Dance bars were banned and judgement supported the amendment later appeal was filled for same. Dance Bar Association was headed by Dance Bar Girls filled petition in supreme court and these associations challenged the amendment made under Maharashtra Police Act which banned the dance bars and restaurants in Maharashtra by stating that these amendment is somehow violating the Ar.19 (1) g –Right to carry trade of your choice, Ar.14 –Equality, Ar.21-Right to life. Argument Made: Supreme court was being questioned: Why did it ban Dance Bar? Supreme court answered to these question that We did these to protect dance bar girls. Dance Bar Girls argued for these that: It is the matter of protecting fundamental rights and not the obscenity-vulgar dance.These decision of baning dance bar violated right to practice business trade of ones choice under ar.19 (1) g and also violated right to livelihood under ar.21.Society is not that open minded to give the jobs to dance bar girls.All dance bar girls are not included in prostitution while some of them only dance for earning money and live their livelihood and these decision is somehow taking away their livelihood and right to earn with hard work.Closing the dance bar could result in force prostitution of girls due to economic pressure and conditions.There would be chances of social hatred among public to accept the dance bar girl as a normal human being seeking for job. Maharashtra Government said that dance was vulgar and indecent. Supreme Court Argued that: If the dance in the bars are vulgar & indecent then who saw this? Who is the witness who can tell how indecent the dance was? No one came forward to accept that xyz is a witness of the dance due to social image and stability. Argument by Dance Bar girls and association: On 31st December If a Bollywood actress dances in a five star hotel for enjoyment and also been paid for their performances with a small vulgar dresses then they are not criminals in eyes of court but if an dance bar dance in the bar for their livelihood then they are considered to be criminals, why so?Why Actress cannot be held as prostitute while performing in Five Star Hotels for events? Whereas only a local level of dance bar girl who dance at bars are considered to be an prostitute and her dancing for earning is also held to be indecent and illegal? Here the poor and rich phenomenon was identified. Judgement: New Concept was highlighted through these case by supreme court-PROFESSIONAL EQUALITY Supreme court stroked down the new rule of banning Dance bar on the basis that such amended rule is violating Fundamental Rights of Indian Constitution under Ar.19 1 g, Ar.14, Ar.21 and it is unconstitutional. These judgements gave preference to professional equality. |
| Sensitiveness-case of raid on dance bar by Mumbai police. | Police raid the dance bars and all Prostitutes & Dance Bar Girls were arrested. They were taken to the police station walking on streets as their police van was small and arrested girls were many. Public took a video of all these dance bar girls walking through the police station with Police inspector. These video got viral which resulted into tragedy to one of the prostitute working at dance bar who used to stay at well-established society and her son used to go to good standard school but due to these video everybody in society got to know about the girls’ real profession. Her son was thrown from the school, her room owner rejected to continue her rent agreement with these girls due to one exposure of video which revealed the fact of her profession which was indecent and vulgar in the minds and eyes of society and public. Prostitute is not an accused she is a victim Victimization of victim has taken place due to these act of capturing video and circulating it on social media. |
CONCLUSION: The Court highlighted that restrictions in the nature of prohibition cannot be said to reasonable as there could be several lesser alternatives available which would be sufficient and adequate in order to ensure the safety of women. The Court criticized the ban and stated that it had in fact resulted in many women being forced to enter into prostitution. In this case, the Court argued, that the remedy was worse than the disease and advanced that it would be much more advisable if measures could be made to ensure the safety as well as the working conditions of bar dancers. The solution therefore should not to be to curb women’s freedom but to focus on empowerment.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 oftheir families. In our opinion, the impugned legislation has proved to be totally counter for productive and cannot be sustained being ultra vires Article 19(1)(g)
Author Name- ADV.EKVEERA ASHUTOSH CHITNIS B.L.S, LL.B, LL.M & Pursuing Ph.D. in Criminal Law.
