Case Brief: Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (Ahar) & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Brief Facts of Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (Ahar) & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra

• To start with, in 2005, the Maharashtra government prohibited dance performances in bars except for those in hotels rated 3 stars and above as per sections 33 A and 33 B of the Bombay Police Act. This move was justified on grounds of obscenity and moral corruption. Subsequently, all dance performance licenses were revoked, leading to the unemployment of approximately 75,000 women workers. This prompted affected parties to petition the Bombay High Court, which ruled against the government. The Supreme Court upheld this decision on July 10, 2013.
• However, instead of complying with the Supreme Court's ruling, the respondents swiftly introduced the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016, and its accompanying rules. These new regulations mirrored the provisions of the Bombay Police Act.
• The Act and Rules imposed stringent conditions making it virtually impossible for any establishment to obtain a license. Consequently, no licenses have been issued to date. In response, three writ petitions were filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, namely WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 576 OF 2016, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 24 OF 2017, and WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 119 OF 2017. These petitions raised similar concerns and were collectively addressed in a single judgment.

Issues in Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (Ahar) & Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

The following sections of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance Act and its Rules were challenged for violating the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India:

Act:

• Section 2(8)(i): The definition of 'obscene dance' included dances intended solely to arouse the audience's prurient interest, which was deemed vague.
• Section 6(4): Prohibited granting licenses for venues where discotheques or orchestras were already licensed.
• Section 8(2): Imposed penalties for contravening Section 6(4).
• Section 8(4): Declared throwing or showering money or items of value onto the stage during a performance as an offense.

Rules:

• Part A
  • Condition 2: Required a stage in the bar room to be at least 10ft. x 12 ft. in size with a non-transparent partition.
  • Condition 11: Mandated that dance bars be located at least 1 km away from educational and religious institutions.
• Part B
  • Condition 2: Specified that employees must be hired under written contracts with monthly salaries deposited in their bank accounts.
  • Condition 6: Prohibited customers from throwing money or items onto the stage during performances.
  • Condition 9: Stipulated that dance bars could only be open to the public from 6.00 P.M. to 11.30 P.M.
  • Condition 12: Prohibited the service of alcoholic beverages in bar rooms where dances were performed.
  • Condition 16: Required licensees to ensure that employees had no criminal record.
  • Condition 17: Prohibited modifications to the premises without permission from the licensing authority.
  • Condition 20: Mandated the installation of CCTV cameras in public areas, with recordings retained for 30 days.

Important Arguments by the Petitioner

• Section 6(4) Violation: The petitioner argued that Section 6(4) of the Act infringed upon Article 14 and 19(1) of the Indian Constitution. This section aimed to prevent the issuance of licenses for both dance bars and discotheques or orchestras at the same venue without providing a rational explanation based on reasonable differences. 
• Conflict with IPC: It was contended that obscene dancing, considered as obscenity, is already a punishable offense under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner highlighted a conflict between the central law (IPC) and the State Act, deeming the provision in the State Act arbitrary and in violation of Article 14.
• Prohibition Specificity: The petitioner argued that the prohibition under section 8(4) targeted only dancers and not singers or waitresses. They contended that offering tips to dancers as a form of appreciation was akin to appreciating a singer or a waitress for their performance or service and should not be considered an offense under the law.

Challenges to Specific Conditions

• Condition 2 of part A was challenged as contradictory to a previous court order. 
• Condition 11 of part A was deemed impractical due to the proximity of educational and religious institutions to most buildings in a congested city like Mumbai.
• The imposition of a mandatory tip amount in the bill, as per Condition No. 6, was argued to be unjust by the petitioner. 
• Timings specified for dance bars in Condition No. 9 of Part B were questioned for their lack of purpose compared to the extended operating hours allowed for discotheques, orchestras, and liquor bars. 
• Condition 20 of Part B, mandating CCTV cameras at such establishments, was argued to infringe upon the right to privacy, now recognized as a fundamental right.
• These arguments presented by the petitioner underscored various inconsistencies and perceived injustices within the legal framework governing dance bars and related establishments, urging for a critical review and potential amendments to ensure fairness and constitutional compliance.

Important Arguments by the Respondent

• Section 2(8) of the Act defining 'obscene dance' was defended by explaining that the term 'prurient interest' carries a specific meaning as per the dictionary and is also present in Section 292 of the IPC, which criminalizes obscenity.
• Emphasized the need to interpret Section 8(2) alongside Section 8(1) of the Act. Section 8(1) establishes using a place against Section 3 as a punishable offense, while Section 8(2) introduces a distinct offense under the Maharashtra Act, separate from Section 292 IPC.
• Regarding Section 8(4), the defense highlighted its significance in the cultural context, suggesting that it aims to regulate practices like money showering to prevent inducement. It was linked to Section 354A of the IPC, seen as a means to uphold societal morals.
• Concerning Condition No. 11 of Part A, it was argued as a policy matter, asserting the lawmaker's authority to determine distances in such regulations.
• Addressing Condition No. 2 of Part B, it was explained as a response to economic realities, aiming to combat exploitation of working-class women by mandating written contracts and salary deposits for their protection.
• Regarding Condition No. 20 of Part B, the argument centered on the limitation of privacy rights in situations where crimes could be committed, emphasizing its role in preventing potential criminal activities.

Judgement: Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (AHAR) & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra

• The court affirmed the validity of section 2(8)(i), emphasizing that a dance intended to arouse prurient interest is not a vague concept, especially given its use in Section 292 IPC concerning obscenity.
• Section 6(4) was deemed arbitrary and lacking a rational connection to its purported objective, leading to its unconstitutional annulment.
• A distinction was drawn between the offenses outlined in Section 8(2) and Section 294 IPC, upholding the validity of the former.
• Section 8(4) necessitates personally handing over any money or tips accrued from a dance performance, rejecting the practice of throwing currency or incorporating tips in bills. This provision aimed to ensure the rightful recipient receives due compensation.
• The court invalidated a provision akin to Condition 2 Part A, deeming it irrational and unjustifiable.
• Condition No. 11 of Part A was deemed arbitrary and unreasonable, prompting its annulment with a recommendation to set a reasonable distance from educational and religious institutions.
• While endorsing provisions regarding written contracts and remuneration deposits in bank accounts in Condition 2 Part B, the court struck down the requirement for monthly salaries, citing an infringement on employees' rights under Article 19(1)(g).
• Condition No. 9 of Part B, stipulating the timing of dance performances until 11:30 pm, was upheld as reasonable, providing a sufficient time frame for such activities.
• The court dismissed Condition No. 12 of Part B as disproportionate and unjustified, refuting claims that alcohol consumption would lead to misbehavior towards dancers.
• Condition No. 20 of Part B mandating CCTV camera installations was nullified due to its invasion of privacy, violating constitutional rights as established in the K.S. Puttaswamy case.

Present Status of the Judgment

• The judgment remains applicable at present.