Ban of Dance Bars in Maharashtra: Background and Notion of Morality
In 2005, the Maharashtra government had adopted the Maharashtra Police (Amendment) Bill 2005 amending the Bombay Police Act, 1951, banning “holding of performance or dance of any kind” at “eating house, permit rooms or beer bars” across the state on the grounds of obscenity and that it was promoting prostitution. The amendment declared that the violators of the act will be imprisoned up to three years with fine which may extend to rupees two lakhs. As a result of ban, in Mumbai alone 1,50,000 people including 75,000 women workers went out-of-work.
In April 2006, the Bombay high court had declared that prohibition was “unconstitutional”. The high court noted that the ban was against Article 19(1)(g) (to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business) of the Constitution. The high court had also held that the ban proved to be “totally counterproductive” and it compelled many women workers to take up prostitution out of necessity for maintenance of their families.
Later in 2013, a subsequent appeal by the Maharashtra government in Supreme Court was of no use and the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the high court and held that the prohibition was violation of the fundamental rights in the Constitution. The apex court held that instead of curbing women’s freedom, empowerment of women would be more tenable and socially-wise approach.
After that, there was an executive-judiciary muddle in the state. The Maharashtra assembly amended the Section 33A in the Maharashtra Police Act in 2014, imposing the total ban on dance bars and dance performances in the state. Earlier, the Section 33A allowed dance performances in “exempted” establishments like three-star and five-star hotels but banned it elsewhere. The amendment also enhanced the fine to Rupees five lakhs.
This section 33A was also brought to Judicial review. On 15th October 2015, the Supreme Court declared that the Section 33A inserted by the Maharashtra Police (Second Amendment) Act, 2014 is unconstitutional. The court noted that the state government re-enacted a similar piece of legislation after the court struck down a prohibitory provision in 2013. The court rejected the Maharashtra government’s argument that the two provisions were different.
Analysis: Dance Bars and the Notion of Morality
The notion of ‘morality’ depends on the manner of ‘seeing’ through an issue. There are different behaviours and guiding ethics that attach to these different ways of seeing. Moral standards and ethics are differed from person to person, society to society and generation to generation. One cannot simply impose their morals on others. Moral policing arises out of the narrow-mindedness prevalent in society. Moral policing is a threat to individual liberty. It also threatens cultural diversity.
The restriction of practicing one’s profession unless it is illegal, is violation of the Constitution of the India. The Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution allows its citizens to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The prohibition of dance in bars as pointed out by the Supreme Court violates the Constitution of the India. Women are empowered to think, dream and do whatever they aspire for and not dictated by society and the usual stair-types.
The Maharashtra government has argued that the dance bars and those working there have been indirectly accused of promoting prostitution. But dance is a creative expression. The women have chosen dance as their profession and are earning money. Dancing is not illegal and they are not forcing people to see their performance. The ban on dance bars will affect the right to livelihood of the woman working there. Though the majority of the members of society regards this act of dancing bars as immoral however it will not be justified to ban the dancing bars or impose morals of the majority people on the others unless it is effecting the public morals and creating public nuisance.
Conclusion
The fundamental right provided under Article 19(1) (g) is subject to reasonable restrictions that may be imposed by the State under Clause (6) of Art. 19. Under Clause (6) the State has power either to completely prohibit or to permit with certain reasonable restrictions on certain professions, which are not in the interests of the general public. So, there can be reasonable restrictions that can be imposed on dancing bars but cannot completely keep a ban on it, resulting in infringement of right guaranteed under Constitution in Article 19 (1) (g). As rightly advised by the Supreme Court, the government should instead of prohibiting the dance bars, it should regulate the dance bars, a source of livelihood for tens of thousands of families, to guard against obscenity and exploitation.
