Dancing around the Supreme Court (The case of the bar dancers of Mumbai)

Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - begin learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!

 Dancing around the Supreme Court (The case of the bar dancers of Mumbai)

---

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

---

• An evolving game : The Maharashtra govt. and Courts are in an evolutionary game of regulations concering the dance bars. In Jan. 2019, the S.C. struck down many of the rules.
• The 2005 ban : The govt. banned dance performances in bars (with some exceptions) calling them obscene, morally corrupt and promoting prostitution. The bars appealed in Bombay HC, that upheld their plea. The matter reached the SC, that upheld the HC's decision in 2013.
• SC's reasoning : 

1. It said that the govt. could not discriminate between luxury hotels and other establishments seeking licenses for dance performances. 
2. More than 75,000 women were rendered jobless, and many pushed into prostitution.

• Govt. reaction : It banned everything outright. The second concern was still unaddressed, and fresh cases began. The SC gave a chance to the govt. to prohibit obscene dances (to protect the dignity of dancers).
• A smart government : The govt. now imposed a ban on only obscene or overtly sexual dances, but added many more onerous conditions.

1. Applicants needed to possess a good character,
2. Bars could not be within a km of educational or religious institutions,
3. CCTV cameras to be fitted at entrance,
4. Customers could not throw coins/rupees at dancers,
5. The drinking room and dance room had to be physically separated,
6. Stage had to be of a minimum size, etc.

• SC's view : The SC in 2019 struck down many conditions like (a), (b), (c) and (e). It struck down (a) as being vague, (b) as being impractical, (c) as a violation of right to privacy, and (e) as being unjustified. The SC found that not a single licence was issued by Maha govt. under new norms!
• Time taken in each round : In first iteration, SC took 8 years, and govt. response 11 months. Then it became 1 yr 3 months, and 6 months. Then it became 3 years, and govt. is yet to react.
• The institutional problem : Here there was a cross-party support to shutting down dance bars, and the govt. was very nimble. The SC took its time, producing a gap. So the SC wanted the government to do something positive - issue dance bar licenses. But by striking down laws, the SC needs the govt. to follow its order (so is dependent on the govt.)
• Writ of continuing mandamus : When laws are challenge in any petition, the SC often issues a writ of continuing mandamus - issuing a series of interim orders over a period of time to monitor compliance with its decisions. But a better strategy may be "enforcement", where the court can monitor compliance with its order while issuing of licenses. The SC cannot order a new law to be enacted, though.
• It won't be resolved : The minimum distance norm was not struck down totally, and the "good character" norm was to be defined more precisely. The  govt. has the tools to again engage in a round of obfuscation!
• Summary : The Mumbai dance bar issue highlights the dynamics between the government and the Supreme Court, and how both operate.

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

Join UPSC Self Prep course | Online Course (PT Gurukul)  | Covid Special Course | Join PT courses

* Content sourced from free internet sources (publications, PIB site, international sites, etc.). Take your own subscriptions. Copyrights acknowledged.