Supreme Court raps Maharashtra government over dance bars

The Supreme Court on Monday faulted the Maharashtra government for defying its judgment on dance bars and made it clear that it must implement it and file a compliance report.

A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh took serious exception to the statement made by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Pinki Anand that since Maharashtra had enacted a new law the present petition had become irrelevant. She said dance bars will have to apply for fresh license under the new law. Not satisfied with the ASG’s reply, the bench directed that the state deputy commissioner of police appear personally on April 25.

The bench told the ASG the new law is just on papers. “You have no rules in place and cannot take shelter under this to circumvent our order. Let us make it clear that the 2013 judgment was founded on constitutional principles. It is not a permissible right, but a constitutional right.” The bench said that despite the judgment and subsequent orders, Maharashtra was seeking to avoid implementing the order. “Why didn’t you comply with our order How can you do this We gave you 10 days’ time and you should have complied with it by now. You never sought any extension of the deadline.”

Senior counsel Jayant Bhushan, appearing for the Dance Bars and Restaurants Association, told the court that after the March 2 order, the state received 101 applications for setting up of dance bars. But out of these only four applications were cleared by the government. But within two days, licence for two of the four applications were revoked. He also told the court that police officers who permitted the bars to operate were also suspended and some were transferred.

The court then passed an order directing the DCP, headquarters, in charge of hotels and restaurants, to file a compliance affidavit in the matter and also appear before it on April 25 at the next date of hearing. On March 2, the SC court rejected the state’s plea for having CCTVs monitor the dance bar by the nearest police station. It said coverage of the performance area would be a violation of privacy.