The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a reply from Maharashtra government to a challenge raised by dance bar owners against a new State prohibition law classifying any dance which ‘arouses prurient desire in the audience’ as obscene.
The new law titled Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (working therein) Act, 2016 was passed by the State Assembly to circumvent a Supreme Court judgment of 2014 which ordered dance bars to be thrown open again and classified dance as a profession.
“Our judgment was founded on Article 19 of the Constitution (freedom of profession). How can the foundation of our judgment be taken away by a statutory law?” a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and C. Nagappan observed, using notice to the State government.
Though favourably disposed to stay the law, the Bench later agreed to hear the Maharashtra government, represented by senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, on September 21 before granting any interim relief to the bar owners.
Picking up each provision of the 2016 law which they found “objectionable”, senior advocate Jayant Bhushan, for bar owners, said the law is “vague.”
One of the conditions imposed by Maharashtra government is that a member of the audience at a bar dance performance cannot “throw or shower” currency notes or coins at the performers.
Justice Misra said the court did not find this condition prima facie objectionable. “Even if the performer does not find such an act objectionable, throwing money at dancers affects the dignity of the women,” Justice Misra observed.
“But money is handed over to singers during performance. It is a gesture of recognition of their talent. So giving money to singer is alright and not to a dancer?” Mr. Bhushan asked.
Another condition in the law is that dancers should be employed and paid monthly salaries. “Can you ask Bhimsen Joshi to sing for a monthly salary?” asked Mr. Bhushan.
“Why should we be held in captive employment in one place. We are professionals who move from one show to another in various establishments. My right to perform is an independent right of a professional,” senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan, for the dancers association, contended.
When Mr. Naphade challenged him, asking whom he appeared for, Mr. Dhawan said he was appearing for the dancers.
“I appear for the conscience of the State of Maharshtra,” Mr. Naphade replied. “Good lord! A conscience! And you are throwing these girls out of their jobs with this law?” Mr. Dhawan shot back.
Mr. Bhushan raised several other objections to the law, including installation of CCTVS in dance areas and how dance bar owners are liable to be imprisoned for three years for ‘abetment’ of an obscene act while an obscene act attracts only three months under the Indian Penal Code. The bar owners said the law imposes a condition of 1 km distance from religious and educational institutions, making no place in space-starved Mumbai eligible.
To this, Mr. Naphade said the bar owners cannot put the law under a microscope and should focus on whether the law violates their right to conduct business.
