Rights of Dancing girls in India:

Atulya Singh1

Abstract
“Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people we personally dislike.”2
— Oscar Wilde

The purpose of this research is to look at the issues related to restrictions on bar
dancing and morality concerned therewith. Basically, one's notions of ‘morality’
depends on the manner of ‘seeing’ through an issue, that is, how we ‘see’ things
makes a profound difference in our sense of what constitutes moral behavior.
Without a doubt, there are very different behaviors, guiding ethics that attach to these
different ways of seeing. For all that I want to write about the restrictions on such
issues on grounds of morality reminds the author about the ban on Bombay’s bar
dancing girls. The same set of false premises implied in terms of reform, the same
anxiety about immoral choice versus a moral, the same victimization of women who
work for a living and the same stigmatization of a women’s profession ring loud
clearly in Maharashtra. Though there are many rights provided and programmes
conducted women still strive for the right to control their own destinies. Really, there
is only one good way to talk about the dancing bars that we have got to talk about
everything else that makes up our ideas of morality, and ask what we expect of
ourselves in those other things too. Many of the moral values are simply neglected
and the question why are our publicly debated notions of morality limited to few
things mostly related to women and their behavioral conduct in the society and is
that the full extent of our understanding of decency?

1
Student Maharashtra National Law University (17/B.A.LL.B/52)
2
Oscar Wilde: An Ideal Husband 2. SECOND ACT: LADY CHILTERN. You see now, I was sure, that for many
reasons any further acquaintance between us during your stay in London is quite impossible? MRS. CHEVELEY
[Leaning back in her chair.] Do you know, Gertrude, I don't mind your talking morality a bit. Morality is simply the
attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike. You dislike me. I am quite aware of that. And I have
always detested you. And yet I have come here to do you a service.
INTRODUCTION:
To begin with the morality, I would like to emphasis on the three main types of ethical theories
which are correlated with the concept of morality. 3 Firstly, ‘consequentiality’, which holds the
rightness and wrongness of actions, can only be determined by the consequences of those actions.
Then comes the ‘Utilitarianism’, which is the most common form of consequentialism; the tag line
for this theory is “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Lastly, Deontological theories, which
hold that people may never be used merely as a means, but as an end in themselves. The Virtue
ethics, which holds that the most important moral question is not “What should I do?”, but rather
“What kind of person should I be?” Here in my paper I would like to throw some light on the fact
that ban on dancing bars on the grounds of immorality is not the correct way to handle affairs
relating to moral values. As the moral standards and ethics differs from one individual to the other,
society to society and generation to generation. Someone can’t simply impose them on the other.
In the context of saving the interest of the community and in the name of providing individuals
right, they in reality infringes individual’s liberty. Stopping anyone from practicing their
profession unless it is illegal, is violative of the right of the bar dancing girls to carry an occupation
or profession under the Constitution of India. The restriction to full amounts to a total prohibition
and consequently is violative of the fundamental rights to carry on an occupation or profession.4
While discussing what rights do these girls have this paper further discusses on the views of
different prominent jurists and also about what constitutes morally wrong or public morals. What
comes under public nuisance and can the moral values of the majority be imposed on the minority?

MORALITY:
Ethics are an individual’s collection of morals. Someone who is ethical or moral is someone who
makes decisions based on what she or he feels is right. The least harm or no harm does to the
greatest number of people will be considered as the right decision as accordingly by the people
who has moral values. Morality allows us from inner consciousness in doing or agreeing according
to us and even the society is benefited. It is a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of
right and wrong created by one's individual conscience. Women are empowered to think, dream
and do whatever they aspire for and not dictated by society and the usual stair-types. Certain
elements of society have taken it upon themselves to make sure that they lay down moral guidelines
which even the Constitution of India does not touch upon. It is very difficult to specify what Indian
culture comprises of as it is a combination of an excess of cultures from around the world. The
existence of India can be recognized to its openness to accepting and incorporating foreign

3
Kaptein, Muel & Wempe, Johan. (2002). Three General Theories of Ethics and the Integrative Role of Integrity
Theory. SSRN Electronic Journal. 10.2139/ssrn.1940393. This paper consists of a discussion of the three general
theories of ethics, on the one hand as a framework for “solving” ethical dilemmas and on the other, as a stepping-
stone, for the ethical analysis and evaluation of behavior and practices. We conclude this paper with an exposition
of the Integrity Approach that integrates consequentialist, deontological, and virtue ethics.
4
All thanks to the wider interpretation of Article 21 made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court through its judgement in
Olga Tellis & Ors. v Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors.- ‘right to work’ was recognised as a fundamental right
inherent in the ‘right to life’. Olga Tellis & Ors. v Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. (AIR 1986 SC 18)
elements. Moral policing arises out of the narrow-mindedness prevalent in society. Once society
decides to step down from its rigid stand on empty morality and teaches its men to respect women
and not judge them by their clothes, prevalence of heinous crimes like rape will without a doubt
come down. That will be the time when Indian culture touches its grade or gets its complete status.
Moral policing is definitely affecting business and the impact is huge on the revenue. The
customers today know what is good and what is bad as their socio-economic position is high.
Morality is nothing but all about the perception. Describing morality in this way is not making a
claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or
wrong by people. In this respect, morality is not absolute, but relative and constitutes any set of
behaviors that encourage human cooperation based on their ideology. Morality can also be seen as
the collection of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life. Wrongful acts affect the social moral
values and ethical sensitivity of the members of the society but it is not very simple to distinguish
between what is a rightful act and what is wrongful as the individual's perceptions of life may
differ. Every individual cannot take the same thing in same sense. An act moral and right to one
person can be considered to be immoral or wrongful by the other. The Indian state uses the logic
of protecting individuals by suppressing individual liberty to make laws that go against personal
freedom.

RESTRICTION ON DANCING BARS AND MORALITY:

Sen says, “Our decisions about the future need not be parasitic on the type of past we have
experienced but what will make sense in contemporary India.” Maharashtra government imposed
a ban on bar dancing. They claimed bars have a corrupting influence on public morals. The logic
given was that under the excuse of Dance bars the trade of prostitution too is conducted by some.
The Maharashtra government passed a Bill in the Assembly on 21-07-2005 banning the dance Bar
Trade. Dance Bars and those working there have been indirectly accused of promoting prostitution.
But dance is a creative expression and we have been guaranteed freedom of expression by the
constitution. These women danced to earn money. They have a right to choose of profession.
Dancing is not illegal. Moreover, they are not forcing people to see their performance. They cater
to a place of willing audience. Their right to livelihood is jeopardized by the law. These bars are
the source of income for those who choose their profession as bar dancing. Every individual cannot
take the same thing in same sense. Though the majority of the members of society regards this act
of dancing bars as immoral it will not be justified to ban the dancing bars or impose morals of the
majority people on the others unless it is affecting the public morals and creating public nuisance.
There are many facts that were overlooked so as to shield public morals. The question arises as to
what can be considered to be public morals and as the majority of people think that bar dancing is
an immoral activity, should it be banned? The question whether it is justified to impose values of
majority on everyone? Public morals refer to moral and ethical standards enforced in a society, by
law or police work or social pressure, and applied to public life, to the content of the media, and
to conduct in public places. Hence, thereby we can say that so as to impose ban on the dancing
bars is not reasonable in regards to the fact that this act does not fall under public morals though
the majority of people think it as an immoral activity as it is concerned with private lives and not
conducted or done in public places and it is not justified to impose values of majority on everyone
as moral values differ from person to person. All civilized nations accept a person’s right to
conduct his/her personal affairs independent outside any contravention. However, we often see our
personal conduct being judged on universal moral principles. This is what happened in Meerut.
Police assaulted young couples for meeting in a public park. Actually, they beat up couples present
in the park in full media glare. They defended it in name of protecting the holiness of a public
space. They claimed public display of affection even by mutual consent was immoral and thus
punishable considering that to be western culture influence. What is western cultural influence? Is
it a man meeting a woman in a public place? The moral police seem to think so. Thus, they chose
to make an event out of a common occurrence in Meerut. Though India is a home of diverse
cultural traditions, the cultural communities are not internally consistent and local customs differ.
There is no homogeneous Indian culture. Each can yield different results. Thus, those who talk of
preserving Indian culture capitalize on a few of these and ignore others. Moral policing is a threat
to individual liberty. It also threatens cultural diversity. Cabaret dance where indecent and obscene
act per se is involved, would not attract the provisions of section 294 of the IPC (obscene act in
public place to the annoyance of others is punishable), without fulfillment of one of its essential
ingredients- evidence pertaining to ‘annoyance to others’. While delivering the judgment, stated
that “there was no annoyance caused to others as the audience had visited the hotel paying fees
with a view to watch this dance. In the absence of a special law where cabaret shows are held on
the floors of a hotel in which adults attend on payment, prosecution cannot contend that such
cabaret shows come within purview of section 294 of the IPC. As already noticed human conduct
varies from place to place and from time to time, and from people to people. What may be a rule
of good morality at one time may not be at another time. Where, in one of judgments of the
Supreme Court it was stated that “there could possibly be no serious objection to the hotels and
restaurants entertaining their customers with music and dance so long as it does not become an
obscene performance on a performance in nudity”. In fact, ‘decency’ and ‘morality’ themselves
are terms of wide and variable contents. On a sensitive issue like this the Court would not make a
dogmatic approach, as the concept of ‘decency’ and ‘morality’ are not static, and are bound to
change from place to place, from time to time, from people to people, and from age to age. It was
also rightly said by the Professor Rawls “equality of right to securing generalized wants including
basic liberties, opportunities, power and minimum means of substance and social and economic
inequalities should be arranged so as to ensure maximum benefit to the community as a whole. By
this it can be concluded that the preventing or imposing ban on the dancing bar will not be
permissible as it is every individual’s liberty so as to work and choose their profession. The girls
dancing at bars does not create any nuisance and it is no where harming the public morality as it
is done in private places. Rightly said by Mr. Manjit Singh Sethi, President of the Fight for Rights
of Bar Owners Association – the move to organize the girls is a very good change. For once, the
work of bar girls is being recognized, he feels. “There is nothing immoral about it, no obscenity.
Our patrons are all adults and our girls sing and dance to Hindi film music. Do anyway allowing
children to see Karishma Kapoor (Bollywood star) sing and dance on screen creates obscenity or
against morality. These dancers have danced to a different tune to seek recognition, respect, dignity
and their right to livelihood as entertainers. Under Article 19(1) (g) a citizen has a fundamental
right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. However, such
right is subject to such reasonable restrictions that may be imposed by the State under Clause (6)
of Art. 19. Under Clause (6) the State has power either to completely prohibit or to permit with
certain reasonable restrictions on certain professions, which are not in the interests of the general
public. In a Constitution Bench of five learned Judges of the Apex Court explaining the phrase
”reasonable restrictions’’ held: The phrase ”reasonable restriction” in Art. 19(6) connote that the
limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive
nature, beyond what are required in the interests of the public. The word “reasonable” implies
intelligent care and deliberation that is the choice of a course which reason dictates. Legislation
which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of
reasonableness and unless it strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Art. 19(1)
(g) and the social control permitted by Cl. (6) of Art. 19, it must be held to be wanting in that
quality. So there can be reasonable restrictions that can be imposed on dancing bars but cannot
completely keep a ban on it, resulting in infringement of right guaranteed under Constitution in
Article 19 (1) (g).Cabaret dance where indecent and obscene act per se is involved, would not
attract the provisions of section 294 of the IPC (obscene act in public place to the annoyance of
others is punishable), without fulfillment of one of its essential ingredients- evidence pertaining to
‘annoyance to others’. While delivering the judgment, stated that “there was no annoyance caused
to others as the audience had visited the hotel paying fees with a view to watch this dance. In the
absence of a special law where cabaret shows are held on the floors of a hotel in which adults
attend on payment, prosecution cannot contend that such cabaret shows come within purview of
section 294 of the IPC. As already noticed human conduct varies from place to place and from
time to time, and from people to people. What may be a rule of good morality at one time may not
be at another time. Where, in one of judgments of the Supreme Court it was stated that “there could
possibly be no serious objection to the hotels and restaurants entertaining their customers with
music and dance so long as it does not become an obscene performance on a performance in
nudity”. In fact, ‘decency’ and ‘morality’ themselves are terms of wide and variable contents. On
a sensitive issue like this the Court would not make a dogmatic approach, as the concept of
‘decency’ and ‘morality’ are not static, and are bound to change from place to place, from time to
time, from people to people, and from age to age. It was also rightly said by the Professor Rawls
“equality of right to securing generalized wants including basic liberties, opportunities, power and
minimum means of substance and social and economic inequalities should be arranged so as to
ensure maximum benefit to the community as a whole. By this it can be concluded that the
preventing or imposing ban on the dancing bar will not be permissible as it is every individual’s
liberty so as to work and choose their profession. The girls dancing at bars does not create any
nuisance and it is nowhere harming the public morality as it is done in private places. Rightly said
by Mr. Manjit Singh Sethi, President of the Fight for Rights of Bar Owners Association – the move
to organize the girls is a very good change. For once, the work of bar girls is being recognized, he
feels. “There is nothing immoral about it, no obscenity. Our patrons are all adults and our girls
sing and dance to Hindi film music. Do anyway allowing children to see Karishma Kapoor
(Bollywood star) sing and dance on screen creates obscenity or against morality. These dancers
have danced to a different tune to seek recognition, respect, dignity and their right to livelihood as
entertainers. Under Article 19(1) (g) a citizen has a fundamental right to practice any profession
or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. However, such right is subject to such reasonable
restrictions that may be imposed by the State under Clause (6) of Art. 19. Under Clause (6) the
State has power either to completely prohibit or to permit with certain reasonable restrictions on
certain professions, which are not in the interests of the general public. In a Constitution Bench of
five learned Judges of the Apex Court explaining the phrase ”reasonable restrictions’’ held: The
phrase ”reasonable restriction” in Art. 19(6) connote that the limitation imposed on a person in
enjoyment of the right should not b arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what are required
in the interests of the public. The word “reasonable” implies intelligent care and deliberation that
is the choice of a course which reason dictates. Legislation which arbitrarily or excessively invades
the right cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness and unless it strikes a proper
balance between the freedom guaranteed in Art. 19(1) (g) and the social control permitted by Cl.
(6) of Art. 19, it must be held to be wanting in that quality. So there can be reasonable restrictions
that can be imposed on dancing bars but cannot completely keep a ban on it, resulting in
infringement of right guaranteed under Constitution in Article 19 (1) (g). Neither the Act of
singing, dancing in a hotel and restaurant premises where provisions have been made by way of
licensing nor the rules empower the Commissioner of Police to completely prohibit conduct of
singing, music and dance programmes, in the public places of amusement in the interest of general
public. Playing of music and singing of songs or performance of dance would cause no harm to
the general public nor it is injurious to health, safety and health of the general public and the same
is not prohibited. The August 20, 2005 rally in which thousands of bar dancers had participated
received wide media publicity. The newspapers reported that there are about 75,000 bar girls. For
the bar owners it was just a question of business losses but for the bar girls it was an issue of human
dignity and right to livelihood. When the bars are raided, it is the girls who are arrested, but the
owners are let off. At times, the girls are retained in the police station for the whole night and
subjected to further indignities. But in the litigation, their concerns were not reflected. It is essential
that they be heard and they become part of the negotiations with the State regarding the code of
conduct to be followed during the raids. The two-judge division bench of the Bombay High Court,
comprising Justice FI Rebello and Justice Roshan Dalvi, in a 260-page ruling, quashed the
Maharashtra government’s law banning dance bars on grounds of discrimination under Article 14
of the Constitution of India. The court ruled that that the ban violated the fundamental rights and
constitutional right to equality of bar dancers and bar owners. Neither the Act of singing, dancing
in a hotel and restaurant premises where provisions have been made by way of licensing nor the
rules empower the Commissioner of Police to completely prohibit conduct of singing, music and
dance programmes, in the public places of amusement in the interest of general public. Playing of
music and singing of songs or performance of dance would cause no harm to the general public
nor it is injurious to health, safety and health of the general public and the same is not prohibited.
The August 20, 2005 rally in which thousands of bar dancers had participated received wide media
publicity. The newspapers reported that there are about 75,000 bar girls. For the bar owners it was
just a question of business losses but for the bar girls it was an issue of human dignity and right to
livelihood. When the bars are raided, it is the girls who are arrested, but the owners are let off. At
times, the girls are retained in the police station for the whole night and subjected to further
indignities. But in the litigation, their concerns were not reflected. It is essential that they be heard
and they become part of the negotiations with the State regarding the code of conduct to be
followed during the raids. The two-judge division bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising
Justice FI Rebello and Justice Roshan Dalvi, in a 260-page ruling, quashed the Maharashtra
government’s law banning dance bars on grounds of discrimination under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The court ruled that that the ban violated the fundamental rights and
constitutional right to equality of bar dancers and bar owners.

JURIPRUDENTIAL SCRUTINY ON RESTRICTION ON DANCING BARS

AND MORALITY:
The main question arises here “Ought immorality, as such to be a crime?” Mill and Hart say that
the answer is “No”; and said that it is not a legitimate function of the state to punish conduct simply
on the grounds that it is against moral values of the majority. The ban on the dancing bars not only
created disturbances in the city and also resulted in the revenue loss the government. There are
people who will lose not only jobs but also homes if the bars close down. People who work as
waiters, stewards, cleaners, cooks, guards and drivers for the bars were left with no job. Ban on
dance bars to protect the morality of the youth may soon push out of work dance girls to trades
that are more exploitative. As rightly agreed on the points of Hart and John Stuart Mill the
contemporary liberal theorists such as Joel Feinberg, Thomas Nagel, and Ronald Dworkin have
kept their views and stated that it is not a justifiable function of the state to punish conduct simply
on the grounds that it is immoral. The dancing bars cannot be considered as crime. It can be
decriminalized on the grounds that every individual has:
• Right to choose any profession
• Privacy of morality
Devlin states that privacy should be respected. Law should only intervene when society won’t
tolerate certain behavior. Law should be of a minimum standard not a maximum standard.
Accordingly as stated by Devlin in his guidelines it is clear that law cannot completely ban dancing
bars on the grounds of immorality but can enforce minimum standards, by which he means that
law can impose minimum standards of restrictions on these acts so as to make it a tolerable
behavior that can be accepted and respected by the other citizens. Devlin presents his views on
public morality stating that society does have the right to pass judgments on matters of morals, and
that the morals are therefore not always a matter of private judgment. Immorality is whatever the
right-minded person presumed to be immoral. Here the right-minded person cannot be an
individual. In determining the context of public morality, he states that the law is not looking for
‘true belief’ but for the ‘common belief’ and before a society can put a practice beyond the limits
of tolerance there must be a deliberate judgment that the practice is injurious to society and the
limits of tolerance differs and departure from moral standards varies from generation to generation
and for this reason the law should be slow to intervene in the sphere of morality because what may
not be tolerated in one generation may come to be tolerated in the next. Hart notion is that we have
a right to be protected against shock or offence to feelings by some public display. But we have
no right to be protected from distress caused by knowing that certain things are done in private. A
right ‘to be protected from the distress which is inseparable from the bare knowledge that others
are acting in ways you think wrong, cannot be accepted that act to be immoral by anyone who
recognizes individual liberty as a value. According to Harts an immoral act committed in private,
there is no victim but only a transgressor of a moral rule, the view that of conceding punishment
is still called for lacks a valid basis. The majority, being satisfied with the ways of mankind as they
now are, cannot comprehend why those ways should not be good enough for everybody. Human
nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for
them. Hart reiterated Mill’s “harm principle”, pointed out that societies survive changes in basic
moral views. It is absurd to suppose that when such a change occurs, to say one society has
disintegrated and been succeeded by another. Morals rely on individual conscience. The liberty of
the individuals must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to the other people.
It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others, individually should
assert itself. By this it can be stated that as bar dancing is limited to the individual’s liberty does
not make itself a nuisance to the others. Bars cannot be banned and dancing can be continued
according to Mills theory as it is primarily concerned about individual’s liberty and choice of
profession indeed done in private place not causing harm to others. Mill’s general principle states
that- “There is a sphere of action in which society as distinguished from the individual has if any,
only an indirect interest: comprehending all that portion of a person’s life and conduct which
affects others, only with their free, voluntary and undeceived consent and participation. This, then,
is the appropriate region of human liberty”.
It comprises of: -
• Inward domain of consciousness, demanding liberty of conscience in the most comprehensive
sense, liberty of thought and feeling, absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects,
practical or speculative, scientific, moral or theological.
• Liberty of tastes and pursuits, of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow,
without an impediment from our fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even
though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong.
• Liberty of each individual follows the liberty, within the same limits of combination among
individuals; freedom to unite for any purpose not involving harm to others.
In 1966 Professor Dworkin discussed the validity of the assumption made by Devlin that a society
has a right to protect the institutions/organizations against the conduct that the majority of its
members disapprove of it on the moral grounds. As rightly pointed out by Mill “Mankind are
greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves than by compelling
each to live as seems good to the rest. Dancing bars are organized with the license and they have
the right to carry on the conduct of their business against the disapproval of majority members on
the grounds of morality.

Right to Work and Part IV of the Indian Constitution:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, both of which were acceded by India, in Article 23 and Article 6 respectively,
recognize the right to work in an employment of one’s choice and the State’s responsibility to
safeguard this right. However, the Indian Constitution does not explicitly recognize the ‘right to
work’ as a fundamental right. It is placed in Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) of the
Constitution under Article 41, which hence makes it unenforceable in the court of law. Despite the
absence of an express wording of the ‘right to work’ in Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the
Constitution, it became a ‘fundamental right’ through a judicial interpretation. All thanks to the
wider interpretation of Article 21 made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court through its judgement in
Olga Tellis & Ors. v Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors.- ‘right to work’ was recognized as a
fundamental right inherent in the ‘right to life’.

Olga Tellis & Ors. v Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. (AIR 1986 SC
18):
The case came about through a writ petition filed by the petitioners under Article 32 before the
Supreme Court of India challenging the decision of the Respondents- State of Maharashtra and the
Bombay Municipal Corporation, to demolish pavement dwellings and slums.

The Hon’ble Bench which decided the case consisted of C.J., Y.V. Chandrachud, J., A.V.
Varadarajan, J., O. Chinnappa Reddy, J., S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and J., V.D. Tulzapurkar.

Arguments Raised
Arguments of the petitioners-
1. That such demolition amounted to a violation of the right to livelihood, which could be read under
Article 21 along with the right to life.
2. That the action of the respondents would violate the right of the petitioners under Article 19
(e)(g).
3. That S. 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 was arbitrary as it enabled the
Municipal Commissioner to cause the removal of encroachments without giving a notice to the
parties who would be affected.
4. That the petitioners’ act of encroaching the pavement rose out of an economic compulsion and
thus calling them trespassers would be constitutionally not permissible.

Arguments of the respondent-

2. That as the petitioners had accepted before the High Court that they did not claim any fundamental
right to put up huts on public passage routes and had given an undertaking to the High Court that
they would not obstruct the demolition of the huts after October 15, 1981, they should be estopped
from claiming that the demolition of slums and pavement dwellings violated their right to
livelihood.
2. That no person has the right to put a public property to private use. That the right conferred under
 Article 19(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India cannot be read as a right to
encroach/trespass public property.
3. That S. 312, S. 313 and s. 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act do not violate the
Constitution but are legislated in public interest.
4. That the slum hutments near the Western Express Highway, Vile Parle were constructed on an
accessory road, which was part of the Highway itself, and were neither regularized by the
Corporation nor registration numbers were assigned to them.
5. That no deprivation of life, directly or indirectly is involved in the eviction of the slum and
pavement dweller from public places. That the Municipal Corporation is under an obligation under
S. 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act to remove obstructions on public streets and
other public places.

The Judgement- Right to Work:

Having paid heed to the arguments of all the parties the Court gave its judgement. At the very
outset, the Court dismissed the argument of the respondent which stated that by the operation of
the doctrine of estoppel, the petitioner could not claim the fundamental right- the right to
livelihood. The Court held that there could be no estoppel against the Constitution. That, it was to
fulfil the vision in the Preamble that Fundamental Rights were conferred and no person could
barter away the rights thus conferred by way of Fundamental Rights. With respect to the case at
hand, the Court observed that persons in the position of the petitioners lived in slums and on
pavements because they had small jobs in the city. That they chose to live on pavements or in
slums in the vicinity of their place of work to avoid the commuting costs which cost them way too
much when compared to their meagre earnings. Losing the sheds hence meant losing a job. The
Court also observed that though the petitioners were using public property for private use, they
had no intention of committing an offence, intimidate, insult or annoy any person, which is the gist
of the offence of ‘Criminal Trespass’ as defined under S.441 of the Indian Penal Code. That they
lived there due to economic compulsion.

Right to work is a Fundamental Right:

Coming on to the question of the ‘right to livelihood’ as claimed by the petitioners the Court had
observed that to make living life meaningful there had to be a means of living, i.e. the means of
livelihood. That, if the right to livelihood was not treated as a part of the right to life, the easiest
way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of earning a
living. The Court held- that, which makes life possible to live, must be deemed to be an integral
component of the right to life. For if a person is deprived of his right to livelihood he shall be
consequently deprived of his right to life, for life- as enshrined under Article 21, meant more than
mere animal existence.

DPSP and Fundamental Right:

‘Right to work’ was recognised in light of the supplementary and complementary characteristic of
the Fundamental rights and DPSP with respect to each other. Right to life must include the right
to work as has already been explained above as per the judicial interpretation. The DPSP, on the
other hand, provides for the state’s responsibility to ensure that all citizens have the right to an
adequate means of livelihood. Keeping in mind the non-enforceable nature of the DPSPs the Court
had held that DPSPs reflect the vision of the State and thus possible steps should be taken in
furtherance of it. Hence, ‘Right to work’ is an outcome of a harmonious interpretation of both the
fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy.

INVOKING OLGA TELLIS TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF DANCING

GIRLS
State of U.P. v Charan Singh is a 2015 case where an appeal against the order of the High Court
of Allahabad was filed. In this case, emphasis was again laid on the importance of including ‘right
to work’ in ‘right to life’ under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The respondent who was a permanent employee was terminated from his job as a tube-well
operator. Terming his termination as illegal the Industrial Tribunal had ordered for his
reinstatement. The appellant however appealed against the order of the Industrial Tribunal and
subsequently of that of the High Court of Allahabad, thereby spending 4 decades in litigation.

In light of the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that the appellant unnecessarily litigated
the matter for so long. The Court observed that keeping a person out of job for years was arbitrary
and unreasonable. Reiterating the ruling of Olga Tellis case, the court held right to work to be a
fundamental right. The employer, the state of U.P., was held liable for its arbitrary and
unreasonable action of terminating the service of the respondent and depriving him of his
livelihood for a long period.

Similar situation arises here where only on the basis of "morality” government chose for the
women working as dancing girls that they cannot work there anymore. Clearly, violating the Olga
Tellis Judgement and also violating the girls’ right over the body and right of choice. Where the
government had cited protection of underage girls and women from being trafficked and pushed
into prostitution a stronger enforcement of Vishakha guidelines and many other steps like
increasing safety for these girls and licensing and mandatory registration of workers to prevent
and if happens reports any unlawful activity against them.

Protection of Bar Dancing Girls

In 2013 the Government enacted a legislation based on the steps of given by Vishakha Guidelines.
Namely, Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act,
2013 now while this concern raises whether such places come under the purview of this act, I
interpret it simply with my understanding the section 2 (O) (ii) defines a workplace as “any private
sector organization or a private venture, undertaking, enterprise, institution, establishment, society,
trust, non-governmental organization, unit or service provider carrying on commercial,
professional, vocational, educational, entertainmental5, industrial, health services or financial
activities including production, supply, sale, distribution or service;”6. We can interpret these
dance bars easily as under many of these especially them to be a private establishment carrying on
commercial and entertainmental service carrying providing service.

5
Even though the word is used as it is in the act it is not listed as a real word under any dictionary.
6
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
CONCLUSION

I do not find dancing bars offensive to the morals. The issue of prohibiting
dance in dance bars is that it is dancing which arouses the physical lust amongst
the customers present. This allegation is not very true but becomes derogatory
only when it crosses the tolerance that is beyond the acceptability of the
society. But the right to dance has been recognized as part of the fundamental
right of speech and expression. This could be the discretion of a bar owner to
have dance performance or by bar dancers themselves using their creative
talent to carry on an occupation or profession. In other words, we can consider
it as using their skills to make a living.

Law should in larger sense be grounded on the permanent interests of man as

a progressive being.’ Progress of an individual is of great importance to protect
and promote liberty of action for all. States in general should acknowledge the
importance of such liberty of action and should limit their law accordingly.
Interference with liberty of action, especially by the use of power or coercion,
required a special sort of justification, that it was needed to prevent harm to
others. Hence, we can state that law cannot completely ban the dancing bars
on the grounds that the actions of these individuals are considered to be wrong
or immoral by the others in the society as it is an interference with the person’s
liberty and livelihood. Law cannot take any unreasonable step on basis of
morality because morality as earlier discussed, it differs from one society to
another and generation to generation. One cannot simply impose the views of
majority on the others. Restrictions can be imposed only to an extent that is
creating harm to the society but there should not be any unreasonable decision
which results in infringement of the fundamental rights and affects their
livelihood. Something done in private is not regarded as public nuisance and
cannot be taken as base for imposing a ban on their profession.

Dancing bars are no way harming others and it is only a comprehension of

personal life and conduct which is confined to themselves and one's individual
liberty. Considering this act as immoral will not be justified in the context that
it affects the society and infringes the moral values of others because people
indulge in these acts with their free, voluntary and undeceived consent which
can be regarded as appropriate region of human liberty. As long as we do not
attempt to deprive others of their rights and liberty or impede their efforts to
obtain it can do an act that is pursuing our own good in our own way. Every
individual can be the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily,
mentally or spiritually. So would like to conclude that bar dancers have all the
rights to control their destiny.