Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (AHAR) & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2019 INSC 52Decided 17 Jan 2019
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 576 of 2016
Justice A.K. Sikri · Justice Ashok Bhushan

Background

Associations representing bar and restaurant owners, along with a union representing women bar dancers, challenged Maharashtra's 2016 law and rules regulating dance performances in hotels, restaurants and bars, arguing the conditions for obtaining a dance licence were so strict that not a single establishment had actually been granted one since the law was enacted. This followed an earlier round of litigation in which the State's outright ban on dance bars had already been struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. The State defended the new law as a reasonable regulatory measure meant to prevent obscenity and protect women from exploitation.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that while the State could validly require a licence and prohibit genuinely obscene performances, several specific conditions in the rules were so unworkable or disproportionate that they amounted to an indirect, backdoor ban on dance bars rather than genuine regulation. It struck down the condition requiring dance venues to be at least one kilometre from any educational or religious institution (effectively impossible in a city like Mumbai), the mandatory CCTV camera requirement (an unconstitutional invasion of privacy), the condition banning service of alcohol where dances were performed, and the requirement that dancers be employed only on a fixed monthly salary (which restricted their freedom to work at multiple venues). It upheld other conditions as reasonable, such as restricting performance timings to 6 pm-11:30 pm and requiring written employment contracts with bank-deposited wages. The writ petitions were partly allowed on these terms.

Lesson Learnt

A law dressed up as "regulation" can still be struck down as unconstitutional if its actual conditions make the regulated activity impossible to carry out in practice; courts will look past the label of a statute to its real-world effect on fundamental rights such as the freedom to carry on an occupation and personal privacy.

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case