Maharashtra Government’s decision to make CCTVs mandatory inside dance bars with live feed of the performances relaying to the Police Control Room will amount to violation of a citizen’s right to privacy, said the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Terming the condition a restriction in opening of dance bars, as directed by the SC in October 2015, the Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh asked the State to reconsider and report on March 1 the condition on CCTVs and five other terms objected to by dance bar owners. The Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association, which had won the case challenging the ban on dance bars, had approached the SC against the fresh conditions set for grant of dance bar licences.
Senior advocate Jayant Bhushan raised objections to the requirement for CCTVs and solid partitions separating the restaurant from the stage.
Another term limited the number of dancers on the stage at a time to four. Bhushan argued that such restrictions delayed the implementation of the court’s orders, besides causing hurdles in the business of his clients and the dancers.
The Bench agreed to the objections regarding CCTVs and solid partitions. It said, “Anybody will be embarrassed to be photographed by CCTVs. He has a right to privacy.”
However, Additional Solicitor-General (ASG) Pinky Anand, who appeared for the Maharashtra Government, said the conditions were part of the State’s attempt to regulate obscenity and control crime. She said that in theory the court allowed dance bars in order to protect the right to work of artistes. However, in reality, dance bars promoted prostitution and other illegal activities that ought to be curbed.
The Bench said, “Once we have decided on constitutional parameters, you are fighting despite our judgment which says you can’t prohibit as it is a right to profession of the professional dancers. Bereft of obscenity, dance is an art. We must move ahead of this gender bias.”
Bhushan argued that it’s the other way round. If the dance bars are closed, the dancers are forced into prostitution. The court said the State can regulate such activities by providing certain protections but it has to consider the right of privacy as well.