The Supreme Court's verdict paving the way for the reopening of dance bars in Maharashtra has evoked a mixed reaction from the legal fraternity with some hailing it and others calling it a setback for the state government.
Stating that there can be "regulations" but not "total prohibition", the apex court Thursday cleared the path for the reopening of dance bars in Maharashtra by setting aside some provisions of a 2016 law imposing restrictions on their licencing and functioning.
A section of lawyers welcomed the judgement and said the SC has drawn a balance between the rights of citizens and duty of the state to govern, while the others said the government's law imposing restrictions on the licencing and functioning of dance bars should have been upheld in totality.
Senior lawyers opined the apex court has taken a balanced approach towards the issue and ensured the rights of both the government and citizens are not curtailed.
Retired Bombay High Court Judge F I Rebello, who had in 2006 struck down the ban imposed by the government on operation of dance bars, said the SC has rightly quashed the unreasonable restrictions imposed on such outlets.
"The government has been trying since long to not implement the judgement (given by him as HC judge).
More From This Section
"It keeps coming up with new and archaic restrictions which stifle a person's freedom to carry out a profession of his choice within the ambit of law," Justice Rebello told PTI.
It is very unfortunate for the government to keep interfering with a citizen's right to conduct his business, the retired judge maintained.
Senior advocate Anand Grover, who had appeared for an association representing bar dancers when the matter was being heard in the HC, welcomed the ruling.
"It is a good judgment...especially for the bar owners. It is high time people are given the freedom to carry out their business legitimately," Grover said.
Senior lawyer and former Maharashtra Advocate General Srihari Aney said the Supreme Court has taken a "pragmatic and balanced" view on the issue.
"The order makes a lot of sense. There is a need to govern but not to control. Banning dance bars in totality is one thing but saying they can function with so many restrictions is another," Aney said.
"Regulations have to be practical and workable. There is a very thin line between what is moral and what is not. When people confuse between the two, then it leads to chaos," Aney said.
The former advocate general said making it mandatory to install CCTVs inside dance bars (as per the 2016 law) was an intrusion into a person's right to privacy.
Advocate Uday Warunjikar, however, felt the apex court should have upheld all the provisions of the 2016 law.
"It is a major setback to the government. The apex court ought to have considered the social impact of the legislation," Warunjikar said.
He said the provision making CCTVs mandatory inside dance bars should not have been quashed.
"If CCTV inside a dance bar infringes upon a person's right to privacy, then CCTVs installed in all public places will have to be removed," Warunjikar maintained.
Another advocate, Aditya Pratap, said the SC should have considered the constitutional objectives the government had sought to achieve through these provisions.
"While the Supreme Court's decision may be backed by cogent legal reasoning, it marks a step backward from the mandate prescribed under the Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 36-51).
"These Articles mandate the state to enhance public morals and inhibit the sale and consumption of intoxicants and protect the dignity of women," he said.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
