BENCH -: JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH; JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT.FACTS.
FACTS:
The appellants, operating restaurants and bars in Mumbai featuring orchestra performances, commonly referred to as "Orchestra Bars," held the necessary licenses. To operate such establishments, licenses and permissions were mandated under the Licencing and Performance for Public Amusement, including Cabaret Performance, Melas and Tamashas Rule, 1960 (hereafter "Rules, 1960"). The police commissioner, under this rule, possessed discretionary powers to impose conditions. The petitioners contested two specific conditions:
The licensee is permitted to keep only four female singers or artists and four male singers or artists present on the permitted stage.
A maximum of eight artists are permitted to be present on the stage.
Prior to the appeal, when the case was presented before the Bombay High Court, contentions were raised against the arbitrary imposition of discriminatory conditions, asserting violations of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India under the Mumbai Police Act, 1951. However, these contentions were dismissed, and the challenge against the principles of the said Act was rejected by the High Court. It held that the Commissioner was within his powers to issue conditions essential for the operation of orchestra bars. Following the rejection of the writ petition, the appellants brought the case before the Supreme Court, reiterating the contentions of the unconstitutionality of the conditions imposed under the Mumbai Police Act. Despite the Bombay High Court not addressing the significant questions involved in this case, the Supreme Court took an unprecedented stance, overturning the High Court's order.
ISSUES
Whether the conditions imposed under the rules are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
Whether conditions imposed on limiting the total number of employees and the number of female artists is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India ?
Whether the total ban on orchestral performances in bars was justified
Whether the rules made by the executive, i.e., the commissioner, under this clause are valid ?
Whether other conditions mentioned in the rules are valid
JUDGMENT:
In delivering the judgment for this case, the Supreme Court heavily leaned on legal precedents and considered previous litigations involving women's participation in Mumbai establishments. Familiar with issues concerning bans and restrictions on women's involvement in performances within Maharashtra, the Court addressed the present dispute. The Court dismissed all arguments presented by the respondents, highlighting that the arbitrary imposition of a gender cap under the guise of reasonable classification and women's protection seemed to stem from a stereotyped preconception about the societal class to which women in bars and institutions belonged.
Making a crucial observation, the Court remarked that the contested guidelines and conditions did not aim to protect women from exploitation; rather, they exacerbated the exploitation by unreasonably imposing numerical restrictions. The Court emphasized that it did not intend to perpetuate the rhetoric of empty rights, asserting that the State's interference for protection should be proportionate to legitimate aims. In this context, the Court held that conditions imposing a gender cap on the number of women or men performing in orchestras and bands under the Rules, 1960 provision were null and void. However, it validated the overall limit of performers, set at eight. The Court clarified that performances of a vulgar nature promoting obscenity would be punishable under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and any establishment permitting obscenity risked losing its license.
Comments