1. Challenge to the constitutionality of a licensing order for live band music, cabaret, and discotheques in restaurants under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 13 , 14 , 19 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 77
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Karnataka Live Band Restaurants Association – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL No.4741 OF 2007
Decided on : 25-01-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Order 2005 is neither without jurisdiction nor arbitrary.
"In the interest of general public" comprehends in it public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community and lastly objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution.
Reasonable restriction, in consonance with Article 19(1)(6), can be imposed.
Order 2005 is neither without jurisdiction nor arbitrary.
"In the interest of general public" comprehends in it public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community and lastly objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution.
Reasonable restriction, in consonance with Article 19(1)(6), can be imposed.
Subject
PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT - LICENSING AND REGULATION
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Karnataka Police Act, 1963 – Section 2(14) and (15), and section 31 r/w Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusements (Bangalore City) Order, 1989 and Clause 2, Order 2005 dated 09.12.2005 – Police statutorily duty bound to maintain and give precedence to the safety and the morality of the people and the State – However, welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community – Article 14 and 19(1)(g), Constitution of India. (Para 39, 47)
AIR 1955 SC 191; AIR 1958 SC 538; (1990) 4 SCC 366; (2013) 8 SCC 519 – Relied upon
(b) Constitution of India – Article 14 and 19(1)(g) – Reasonableness and "in the interest of general public" – Right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) subject to imposition of appropriate reasonable restrictions by the State in the interest of general public – Test of reasonableness – Factors to be considered – "In the interest of general public" comprehends in it public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community and lastly objects mentioned in Part IV. (Para 47, 48, 50)
AIR 1952 SC 196; (1986) 3 SCC 20; 1992 Supp(1) SCC 684; 1988 Supp. SCC 176 – Relied upon
(c) Karnataka Police Act, 1963 – Section 31 and 2(15) – Order 2005 – Issued u/s 31 – To regulate, control and supervise the activities specified in clause(w) and (x) – Activities covered by expression “Public Entertainment" as defined in Section 2(15) – Order 2005 held valid. (Para 52)
(d) Order 2005 – Clauses (w) and (x) – Regulating Cabaret, Discotheque or Live Band Music by making licence obligatory – In public interest – A reasonable restriction, in consonance with Article 19(1)(6) – Conditions specified in Sub-clauses (a) to (l) of Clause 7, Clause 8 and Clause 9 held proper to ensure public safety and welfare – Compliances required including seating arrangements also held justified – Requiring licensing authority to give reasons for rejecting an application for licence appreciated. (Para 54, 55, 57, 60, 62, 69)
(1986) 3 SCC 615; (1995) 2 SCC 161; (1995) 5 SCC 139; AIR 1984 Cal.268; AIR 1962 SC 305;; (1985) 1 SCC 641; AIR 1958 SC 578; (1992) 3 SCC 637; (1994) 6 SCC 632; (1970) 2 SCC 780; (1969) 1 SCC 853; (2004) 1 SCC 712; (2016) 7 SCC 703; AIR 1954 SC 224; (2013) 8 SCC 519; (2013) 10 SCC 1; (1993) 3 SCC 708; (1982) 1 SCC 484; AIR 1974 SC 1539; AIR 1966 SC 740; (1983) 4 SCC 166; (2003) 8 SCC 413; (1995) 6 SCC 289; AIR 1963 Guj. 259; 334 US 558 (1948) – Distinguished
(e) Order 2005 – Clause 3 – Order permitting certain performances without licence – Looking to nature of performances, held, there is no discrimination – Order does not suffer from vice of arbitrariness. (Para 75)
Facts of the case:
The appellant is the Association registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and Rules framed thereunder. The Association is formed by the persons, who are engaged in the business of running the restaurants in various parts of the city of Bangalore (now Bengaluru).
In addition to serving food items/beverages to their customers, the owners of these restaurants also entertain their customers by displaying "Live Band Music" in their restaurants to attract more and more customers in the restaurants. In some restaurants, the “cabaret dance” and “discotheque” are also performed to attract the customers.
The Commissioner of Police called upon the restaurant owners, who were displaying "Live Band Music" in their restaurants to obtain the licences under Order 1989 for running their restaurants and for displaying the Live Band Music.
The restaurants owners filed the writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka which was dismissed by a division Bench appeal against which in turn was allowed by Supreme Court. The restaurant owners were permitted to continue with their business with certain restrictions.
The Commissioner then issued the impugned Order 2005 on 09.12.2005 after ensuring the compliances as directed. This gave rise to filing of the writ petition by the appellant-Association which was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Order 2005 is neither without jurisdiction nor arbitrary.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- public law
Table of Contents
2. Whether the licensing order violates Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) by imposing unreasonable and discriminatory conditions on restaurant owners providing live entertainment. (Para 20 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
3. The licensing order is a valid exercise of statutory power to regulate public entertainment for safety and morality, constituting a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6). (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 )
4. Licensing requirements for specific entertainment activities in public places are reasonable restrictions in the interest of general public safety and morality under Article 19(6). (Para 55 , 56 , 64 )
5. Appeal dismissed and the licensing order upheld, with directions to ensure strict compliance with safety norms and noise pollution control. (Para 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 85 )
6. Is the requirement to obtain a license for live band music in restaurants a violation of the fundamental right to trade?
No. The court held that requiring a license for activities like live bands, cabaret, or discotheques in restaurants is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution, as it serves the larger public interest by ensuring safety, morality, and law and order. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 )
7. What is the test for determining whether a restriction on a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) is reasonable?
The test of reasonableness is viewed in the context of the issues faced by the legislature, focusing on furthering social interest and the moral/material progress of the community, rather than from the perspective of the person restricted. (Para 46 , 47 )
8. Does the exemption of certain traditional arts from licensing create an unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14?
No. The court found a reasonable distinction because traditional performances like Yakshagana are typically one-time events in theaters and do not generally involve the same risks of indecency or crowd attraction as regular live bands or discotheques. (Para 74 , 75 )
9. How does the court evaluate the validity of a classification under Article 14?
A classification is permissible if it is based on an intelligible differentia that distinguishes grouped persons or things from others, and that differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute. (Para 42 )
JUDGMENT :
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 19.04.2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 556 of 2007 (GM-POLICE) whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein praying for setting aside the order dated 09.02.2007 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.27523 of 2005.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts infra in detail including the background facts, which led to filing of this appeal.
3. The appellant is the Association registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and Rules framed thereunder. The Association is formed by the persons, who are engaged in the business of running the restaurants in various parts of the city of Bangalore (now Bengaluru).
4. In addition to serving food items/beverages to their customers, the owners of these restaurants also entertain their customers by displaying "Live Band Music" in their restaurants. Indeed, the purpose of providing the facility of "Live Band Music" is to attract more and more customers in the restaurants. In some restaurants, the “cabaret dance” and “discotheque” are also performed to attract the customers.
5. The facility of “Live Band Music" and other two items in the restaurants gave a cause to the dispute, which led to filing of the writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka in the year 1989 and later in appeal to this Court by the appellant-Association and some individual restaurants’ owners against the State. The dispute arose with the following background.
6. The Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), apart from dealing with several other matters pertaining to police force/administration, also deals with the subject "Police Regulations" in Chapter IV of the Act.
7. Section 31, which falls in Chapter IV, deals with power to make, alter or rescind orders issued for regulation of traffic and for preservation of order in public places. This Section empowers the Commissioner and the District Magistrate to make orders, alter or rescind subject to a caveat that it should not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.
8. The Commissioner and the District Magistrate are empowered to regulate the traffic and to preserve and control the public places. Section 31 (a) to (z) has specified different areas for this purpose. It is, in exercise of this power, the Commissioner/District Magistrate of Bengaluru issued an order in the year 1989 called "Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusements (Bangalore City) Order, 1989" (hereinafter referred to as "the Order 1989"). The Commissioner then called upon the restaurant owners, who were displaying "Live Band Music" in their restaurants to obtain the licences under Order 1989 for running their restaurants and for displaying the Live Band Music.
9. The restaurants owners felt aggrieved and filed the writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka. According to them, their restaurants wherein they were displaying "Live Band Music" for entertaining their customers, was not an activity covered under Order 1989. It was contended that these restaurants could not be treated as a place of "Public Amusement" as defined under Section 2(14) of the Act, but at best could be treated as a place of “Public Entertainment” as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act. In other words, the contention of the writ petitioners was that the applicability of the Order 1989 was confined only to the places of "Public Amusement" and since the restaurants were displaying Live Band Music, their place could not be termed as the place of public amusement as defined under Section 2(14) of the Act. It is for this reason, the provisions of the Order 1989 could not be extended to their restaurants.
10. It was contended that there lies a distinction between the activities falling in "Public Amusement" and those fallin
