Mumbai dance bars allowed to function by Supreme Court (SC).

Mumbai dance bars allowed to function by Supreme Court (SC).

News: SC lifted the ban imposed by Maharashtra government to ban dance bars in the state.

Facts:

• SC permitted dance performances by women in bars and removed the arbitrary rules put in place by the government to curb dance bars.
• SC struck down 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, to maintain a balance between public interest and the constitutional right to earn a livelihood.

Background:

• Successive governments in Maharashtra have repeatedly banned Mumbai’s dance bars despite previous court orders recognizing their right to do business and rights of women to earn livelihood who perform in these establishments.
• State governments contend, without empirical evidence, that dance bars contribute to rising crimes in their vicinities; promote prostitution; the girls working there are vulnerable to trafficking and they corrupt public morality.
• The ban was first imposed by state government in 2005 and struck down by the Bombay High Court in the subsequent year.
• The state had granted no licences since 2005 despite court allowing dance bars to function.

SC’s recent guidelines: 

• Showering of currency notes on the dancing girls will stay prohibited, but they can be handed a tip.
• Restrictions such as segregating the restaurant area from the performance area have now been termed irrational.
• Restriction against dance-bars located within a kilometre of an educational institution has been termed unreasonable.
• The apex court has directed protection of girls through a legal contract of employment with the bar-owners.
• SC directed the state government to draft reasonable guidelines regarding the antecedents of performers and location of bars etc.
• The court held that obscene dances could not be permitted in a dance bar and an employer permitting them would be jailed for three years.
• On the state’s arguments that stringent measures were required to maintain “morality” in society, the court said the administration could not thrust its notion of “morality” on the people and standards of morality in a society change with the passage of time.

Reasons behind SC’s decision:

• The ban affected the rights of bar owners and women workers under Article 14 and their right to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g).
• State government legislated that only a person with “good character”, “good antecedents” and without a “criminal record in the past ten years” could obtain bar licences, but such terms are not defined and are arbitrary.