In Brief
The Supreme Court partly allowed writ petitions challenging various provisions of Maharashtra's 2016 Act prohibiting obscene dance in bars and hotels. While upholding the State's right to regulate dance establishments and ban obscene performances, the Court struck down several provisions as arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights. These included: a discotheque-exclusion clause, an unreasonable 1 km distance requirement from schools/temples, restrictions on employment flexibility, prohibition on alcohol service, and mandatory CCTV surveillance in performance areas. The Court clarified that the term "prurient interest" in defining obscene dance is not vague. It also held that individual tips to dancers (if handed personally) cannot be prohibited. The judgment emphasised that while regulation is permissible, conditions so stringent as to make licensing impossible—thereby achieving a de facto prohibition the State had been barred from enacting directly—are unconstitutional.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.