Throwing money at dance bar girls is an insult to dignity of women, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday as it set out to examine the validity of a set of fresh conditions imposed by the Maharashtra Government for granting permission to open dance bars in the State.

One of the conditions of the new law introduced by the State Government to regulate dance bars imposed restrictions on throwing of coins or currency notes at the dancers during their performance.

Commenting on it, the Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and C Nagappan said, “Prima facie we feel this provision shows respect for women. This dignifies decency and culture and it would protect women. A person watching a dance at a dance bar cannot be allowed to throw coin or currency notes at bar girls. It is against their dignity.”

The Bench noted that throwing of coins in a cinema hall is quite different from throwing coins at a performer as there is a certain dignity attached with a professional performance carried out by a bar dancer. Although the dance bar owners maintained that the currency thrown was a tip, the Bench refused to buy the argument.

But there were a host of other conditions contained in the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016, on which neither the bench nor the association of dance bar owners agreed with the State. For instance, the bench was critical about the state imposing curbs on privacy of bar girls by installing CCTVs inside the dance bars. The Court issued notice to Maharashtra Government to seek their response on this aspect. The Court also found it hard to accept yet another condition in the Act that barred serving of liquor at the place where dance is performed. The state argued that such a provision will help curb obscenity.

Senior advocate Jayant Bhushan, who appeared for the dance bar owners, submitted that every attempt was being made by the State Government to frustrate the reopening of the dance bars, as ordered by the Supreme Court in 2013. He pointed out a clause in the new Act that restrained bar girls employed at one bar to perform at other bars. Giving the State six weeks to respond to each objection, the bench fixed the matter for hearing in October.