In the Supreme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 2705 of 2006 IN THE MATTER OF: State of Maharashtra ….. Appellant versus Indian Hotel and Restaurants Association and Anr. ….. Respondent Written Submissions by Anand Grover, Senior Advocate for the Respondents No. 1 to 6 in S.L.P arising out of Writ Petition No. 2338 of 2005 and Respondents No. 1 and 2 in S.L.P. arising out of Writ Petition No. 2587 of 2005. I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Respondent No. 1 in W.P. No. 2338 of 2005 is Forum Against Oppression of Women (FORUM), an autonomous, voluntary and non-funded group which has been working on women’s issues for the last 30 years. 2. The Respondent No. 2 in W.P. No. 2338 of 2005 is Aawaaz-e-Niswan (AEN), a registered women’s organisation dedicated towards fighting for gender equality, since last 20 years. 3. The Respondent No. 3 in W.P. No. 2338 of 2005 is Women’s Centre, an all- women’s registered NGO, working on protection of women from violence and harassment. 4. The Respondent No. 4 in W.P. No. 2338 of 2005 is Akshara, an NGO strengthening women’s rights and empowerment by enhancing their agency and capabilities. 5. The Respondent No. 5 in W.P. No. 2338 of 2005 is Women’s Research and Action Group (WRAG), a registered trust, working towards the promotion of the social and legal status of women from marginalised, disadvantaged, and under- represented communities. 1 6. The Respondent No. 6 in W.P. No. 2338 of 2005 is India Centre for Human Rights and Law, a registered human rights organization, working on access to justice for vulnerable and the marginalised communities. 7. The Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 2587 of 2005 is the Sanmitra Trust, a registered trust that supports sex workers’ health and rights through access to services including for the prevention of HIV. 8. The Respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 2587 of 2005 is Ekta Self Help Group, a self help group consisting of 10 bar dancers in Mumbai. II. ABOUT THE CASE 9. The present case concerns the constitutional validity of sections 33A and 33B Bombay Police (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter ‘BPA’) that sought to ban the performance of dance in eating houses, permit rooms and beer bars, while exempting certain establishments, namely drama theatres, gymkhanas and three starred and above hotels from the operation of the ban. 10. The said law was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay on the grounds of violation of the fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination, freedom of speech and expression, freedom to practice any profession or trade and the right to livelihood, dignity, autonomy and health under Articles 14, 15, 19(1) (a), 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution respectively. 11. By its final order and judgment dated 12.04.2006, the Hon’ble High Court struck down the impugned law on the ground that it violates Article 14 and Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, since the classification between the establishments covered under Sections 33A and 33B of the BPA had no rational nexus with the object of the legislation, which was to prevent vulgar and obscene dancing in the eating houses, permit rooms or beer bars (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘dance bars’). The Hon’ble High Court also upheld the challenge under Article 19(1)(g) on the basis that the impugned law prevented the bar owners and dancers from exercising their freedom of occupation and was not a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(6) and was thus void. III. CLARIFICATION OF FACTS Appellant’s claims 12. The Appellant has raised a number of contentions in support of the ban on dance bars. These include:- 2 i. that women who dance in bars are trafficked or compelled to dance against their will; ii. that a significant number of dancers are minor or under the age of eighteen years; iii. that the majority of dancers are from states outside Maharashtra which confirms the allegation of inter-state trafficking; iv. that dancing in bars is a ‘gateway’ to prostitution v. that bar dancing is associated with crime and breeds criminality vi. that the conditions in dance bars are exploitative and dehumanizing for women vii. that bar dancing contributes to social-ills such as illicit affairs between dancers and the male visitors, break up of family and domestic violence against wives of men visiting the dance bars It is submitted that the above-mentioned contentions are founded on incorrect, exaggerated or overstated claims. Documents relied upon 13. The Appellant has relied on two documents to corroborate its claims. These are: “A study of the Socioeconomic situation and rehabilitation needs of women in dance bars” by PRAYAS and TISS, which was conducted in April-May 2005 after the decision to impose the ban was taken by the Appellant (hereinafter “Prayas study”) (Annexure A-1 of Volume IV) and; A study report of Shubhada Chaukar on problems of Mumbai’s Bar Girls, 1998. (Annexure A-2 of Volume IV) 14. The Prayas study has a sample size of 72 respondents while Shubhada Chaukdar surveyed 50 bar dancers. The total number of bar dancers is estimated to be over 75,000. The samples in the above two surveys are very small and unrepresentative of the population of bar dancers in Maharashtra. 15. There is a third study, entitled “Background and Working Conditions of Women Working As Dancers in Dance Bars” conducted by the Research Centre for Women’s Studies, SNDT University and Forum Against Oppression of Women in 2006 (hereinafter “SNDT study”), (Annexure A-4 at Volume IV) which interviewed a larger group of 500 dancers. This survey contradicts many of the findings of the Prayas study. To illustrate, while the Prayas report documents ‘elements of human trafficking’ in the entry of women into bar dancing, the 3 SNDT study concludes that none of the dancers were trafficked or forced to dance in the bars. Even where their findings are similar, the conclusions drawn by Prayas and the SNDT reports are starkly different. For instance, the fact that a considerable number of dancers are from states outside Maharashtra or have low levels of education raises an alarm of trafficking in the Prayas report. But the SNDT study notes that the background, profile and living conditions of dancers is no different from that of other poor and unskilled migrants, who come to Mumbai to earn a living and that applying the ‘trafficking’ lens to the former is unjustified. 16. For reasons best known to them, the Appellant has chosen to rely on the Prayas study to support its contentions and ignored the findings of the SNDT study, despite it being more representative than the other two. 17. The Appellant has not made any inquiry by itself or commissioned a survey of the dance bars. There was no material collected by the Appellant on the nature of performances and conditions in licensed establishments, to support the differential treatment between section 33A and section 33B of the BPA. The Hon’ble High Court has rightly noted the absence of materials produced by the Appellant - “No survey or any report was prepared or commissioned by the State Government, before the Cabinet took the decision to introduce the ban.” Police complaints and FIRs 18. The Appellant has sought to rely on Police complaints; FIRs registered against the dance bars to substantiate their contentions. After a perusal of these materials, the Hon’ble High Court found no substance in the claims that there was trafficking or prostitution associated with the dancing. The High Court also noted that a large number of women are employed in the bars as waitresses, orchestra singers and attendants who serve customers, otherwise than through dancing, who are not thought of as being trafficked or vulnerable to exploitation. 19. Official data on the incidence of trafficking crimes is available from the National Crime Records Bureau (“NCRB”), of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The NCRB’s annual report ‘Crime in India’ provides the most reliable statistics on crime, including the crime of human trafficking, as recorded under the Indian Penal Code and Special Legislations like the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The figures below for Maharashtra (reproduced from NCRB reports for the years 2004 to 2011) do not show any nexus between dance bars and trafficking in women. 4 NCRB data on Human Trafficking Offences in Maharashtra from 2004-2011 onwards Offences 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Buying of 23 31 25 29 27 20 Girls for Prostitution (Section 373, IPC) Selling of 1 0 1 2 1 2 Girls for Prostitution (Section 372, IPC) Procuration 15 13 13 42 26 20 of Minor Girls (Section 366A, IPC) Importation 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 of Girls (Section 366B, IPC) Immoral 309 222 378 322 327 271 306 390 Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 Child 15 7 5 Marriage Restraint Act Impact of the ban on dance bars 20. By its judgment dated 12.4.2006, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court declared the impugned provisions unconstitutional under Article14 and Article 19(1)(g). However, in May 2006 the Appellant obtained a stay, which prevented the dance bars from reopening. As a result, the bar dancers’ were unable to return to their 5 work. They have remained out of job, since August 2005. Over the last seven years, the Appellant made no attempt to offer alternative employment or economic opportunities to them.