LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. versus INDIAN HOTEL & RESTAURANTS ASSN. & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 654
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
v.
INDIAN HOTEL & RESTAURANTS ASSN. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2705 of 2006) ·
JULY 16, 2013
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI. AND SURINDER SINGH
NIJJAR, J.]
BOMBAY POLICE ACT, 1951:
ss. 33A and 33B - Prohibition on bar dancing in State
of Maharashtra - s.33-A prohibiting to hold performance of
dance of any kind or type in any eating house, permit room
or bear bar, but exempting the establishments covered uls
0
33-B from any such restriction - Held: A distinction, the
foundation of which is the classes of establishments and the
classes/kind of p~rsons, who frequent the establishments and
those wfJo own the establishments, cannot be supported under
the Constitutional philosophy -
The classification of
establishments covered u/ss 33A and 33B would not satisfy
E the test of equality -
The distinction is made on the grounds
of "classes of establishments" or "classes of persons, who
frequent the establishments" and not on the form of dance -
ss. 33A and 33B introduce an invidious discrimination which
cannot be justified under Art. 14 of the Constitution -
Yet at
F the same time, both kinds of establishments are to be granted
licenses and regµlated by the same restrictions, regulations
and standing provisions - It would be more appropriate that
the State Government re-examines the recommendations
made by the Committee and the suggestions made in para
G 123 of the judgment to bring about measures which should
ensure the safety and improve the working conditions of the
persons working as bar girls -
Constitution of India, 1950 -
Arts. 14, 19(i)(a), 19(1){g) and 21.
H
654
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. INDIAN HOTEL &
RESTAURANTS ASSN.
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
655
Art. 19(1)(g) read with Art. 14 - Prohibition on dance -
s.33-A of Bombay Police Act prohibiting dance of any kind
of type in any eating house, permit room or bear bar - Held:
A
State has failed to establish that the restriction is reasonable
8
or that it is in the interest of general public- Insertion of s.33-
A in the Bombay Police Act has led to closure of a large
number of establishments and unemployment of over seventy
five thousand woman workers -
The impugned legislation
has proved to be totally counterproductive and being ultra
vires Art.19(1)(g), cannot be sustained- Bombay Police Act,
C
1951 - ss. 33A- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination Against Women (CEADAW) - Doctrine of
severability - Doctrine of reading down.
By amendment Act No. 35 of 2005, ss. 33-A and 33-
D
B were introduced into the Bombay Police Act, 1951. By
s.33-A, holding of a performance of dance, of any kind or
type, in any eating house, permit room or beer bar was
prohibited; and by ss.33-B it was provided that the
prohibition laid by s.33-A would not apply to the holding
E
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
F
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. Further, violation of
s.33-A(1) was made punishable with a sentence of G
imprisonment up to 3 years and a fine of Rs. 2 lacs. This
led to closure of a large number of establishments and
loss of employment for about seventy-five thousand
women employed in the dance bars in various capacities
in the State. Writ petitions were filed in the High Court
H
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 7 S.C.R.
A contending that ss.33-A and 33-8 were violative of, inter
alia, Arts. 14 and 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the
Constitution. The High Court declared s.33-A as ultra
vires Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
B
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:
Per Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. (for CJI and for himself):
C
1.1. A distinction, the foundation of which is classes
of the establishments and classes/kind of persons, who
. frequent the establishments and those who own the
establishments cannot be supported under the
Constitutional philosophy so clearly stated in the
Preamble to the Constitution of India and the individual
D Articles prohibiting 'discrimination on the basis of caste,
colour, creedExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.