State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: Indian Hotel and Restaurants Assn. and Ors.
AND
Appellants: State of Maharashtra and Ors. etc. etc.
Vs.
Respondent: Ramnath Vishnu Waringe etc. etc.
AND
Appellants: Ghar Hakka Jagruti Charitable Trust
Vs.
Respondent: State of Maharashtra and Ors.
AIR2013SC2582
It was reiterated that the High Court has given a very restrictive interpretation to the
phrase "exploitation of women". The expression would include not only the women who
dance in the prohibited establishments but also the waitresses who work in the same
establishments. It would also include the effect of the dance bar on gender relations of not
just the bar dancer, but for the women around the area. The High Court, according to the
Appellants, failed to take into account the object that the statutory provisions are in respect
of an activity of exploitation of women conducted for financial gain by bar owners and their
intermediaries. It is emphasised that the issue involved in this matter is not merely about
dancing in the bars, but involves larger issues of dignity of women, the destruction of
environments and circumstances where it is profitable to keep women vulnerable. In such
circumstances, the law is being used as a tool for dealing with the evils
of human trafficking and prostitution, rather than simply prohibiting such activity without
the administrative resources to effectively implement such prohibition. It is further
submitted that the State is bound by this duty to protect the interest of its citizens
especially its weaker sections under the Constitution. The legislation is sought to be justified
on the touchstone of Article 23, Article 39(e) and Article 51A(e) of the Constitution. The
action of' the Government is also justified on the ground that it is necessary to emancipate
women from male dominance as women in dance bars are looked upon as objects of
commerce. It is emphasised that the bar dancing is obscene, vulgar and casts considerable
amount of negative influence on institutions like family, society, youth etc.
Relying on the aforesaid, it was submitted that the larger issue involved was the trafficking
of young women and minors into dance bars and also incidentally leading to prostitution
which could have been prevented to a large extent only by imposing the ban. In support of
this, learned Counsel have relied on the Prayas Report which shows that 6% of the women
working in dance bars are minors and 87% are between the age of 18-30 years. Similarly,
SNDT report states that minors constitute upto 6.80 % and those between 19 to 30 years of
age constitute 88.20%. Prayas Report further states that "It was found that the women
Respondents did not find any dignity in this work. This is borne out by the fact that 47% of
women did not reveal their work to family members and outsiders. They are often exposed
to the sexual overtures of overenthusiastic customers and are aware of their vulnerability to
get exploited". The Appellants also relied on a number of complaints and the various cases
of minor girls being rescued from dance bars during the period 2002-05 to buttress their
submission that the young girls were subjected to human trafficking. Learned senior
Counsel also submitted that the High Court has erroneously concluded that if the women
can safely work as waitress in the Restaurants why can they not work as dancers. The
learned senior Counsel also submitted that the High Court wrongly proceeded on the basis
that there was no evidence before the State or the Court in support of the legislation. On
the basis of the above, it is submitted that the restrictions imposed are reasonable and the
legislation deserves to be declared intra vires the constitutional provisions.
