Supreme Court Upholds Licensing for Live Bands in Restaurants: Karnataka Live Band Restaurants Association vs. State of Karnataka (25 January 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 50

Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Can the government require restaurants to obtain a license before hosting live band performances? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, examining the balance between business rights and public safety. This case revolves around the legality of a licensing order issued by the Bengaluru Police Commissioner, requiring restaurants to obtain a license to host live band performances, cabaret, and discotheques. The Karnataka Live Band Restaurants Association challenged this order, arguing it infringed upon their fundamental rights. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the order, finding it a reasonable restriction in the interest of public safety and order. The judgment was authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The Karnataka Live Band Restaurants Association, representing restaurant owners in Bengaluru, challenged the “Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005” (Order 2005). This order, issued by the Police Commissioner, required restaurants to obtain a license to host live band music, cabaret, and discotheques. The Association argued that this requirement was an unreasonable restriction on their right to conduct business.

The dispute began in 1989 when the Police Commissioner issued an order requiring restaurants with live band music to obtain licenses. The restaurant owners contested this, arguing that their establishments were places of “public entertainment,” not “public amusement,” and therefore not subject to the licensing order. The matter went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the restaurants in 2002, stating that restaurants with live band music were places of “public entertainment” and not “public amusement”.

Following this, in 2005, the Police Commissioner issued the new Order 2005, specifically targeting places of public entertainment that offered live band music, cabaret, and discotheques. This led to a second round of litigation, with the Association challenging the order’s legality and validity. The Single Judge of the High Court initially found the order flawed due to procedural issues, but the Division Bench upheld the order. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka found that the Commissioner of Police did not follow the required procedure under Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, before issuing Order 2005. The Single Judge directed the Commissioner to treat the order as a draft and invite public objections. However, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal against the Single Judge’s order, upholding the validity of Order 2005. The Association then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case is primarily governed by the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, specifically:

• Section 2(14) defines “place of public amusement” as “any place, where music, singing, dancing, or any diversion, or game, or the means of carrying on the same is provided and to which the public are admitted and includes a race course, circus, theatre, music hall, billiard room, bagatelle room, gymnasium, fencing school, swimming pool or dancing hall.”
• Section 2(15) defines “place of public entertainment” as “any place to which the public are admitted and where any kind of food or drink is supplied for consumption in the premises by any person owning or having an interest in or managing such place and includes a refreshment room, eating house, coffee house, liquor house, boarding house, lodging house, hotel, tavern, or a shop where wine, beer, spirit, arrack, toddy, ganja, or other kind of liquor or intoxicant or any kind of food or drink is supplied to the public for consumption in or near such shop.”
• Section 31 empowers the Commissioner and the District Magistrate to make orders for regulation of traffic and for preservation of order in public places, including:
  • Clause (w): “(i) licensing or controlling places of public amusement or entertainment; (ii) prohibiting the keeping of places of public amusement or entertainment or assembly, in order to prevent obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the residents or passengers in the vicinity; (iii) regulating the means of entrance and exit at places of public amusement or entertainment or assembly and providing for the maintenance of public safety and the prevention of disturbance thereat;”
  • Clause (x): “(i) licensing or controlling with such exceptions as may be specified, the musical, dancing, mimetic, or theatrical or other performances for public amusement, including melas and tamashas; (ii) regulating in the interest of public order, decency or morality or in the interest of general public, the employment of artists, and the conduct of the artists and the audience at such performances; (iii) prior scrutiny of such performance by a Board appointed by the Government or by an Advisory Committee appointed by the Commissioner or the District Magistrate in this behalf; (iv) regulating the hours during which and the places at which such performances may be given;”

The Order 2005 was issued under Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, to regulate places of public entertainment offering live band music, cabaret, and discotheques. This order mandates obtaining a license and specifies various conditions for operation.

Arguments

Appellant (Karnataka Live Band Restaurants Association) Arguments:

• The activity of displaying live band music in restaurants does not fall under Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, and thus, does not require a license under Order 2005.
• The requirement to obtain a license violates Article 14 of the Constitution by creating an unreasonable classification and discrimination.
• The licensing conditions specified in Order 2005 are unworkable, unreasonable, and harsh, infringing on the fundamental right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
• The conditions create discrimination by requiring some restaurants to obtain licenses while excluding others that are similarly situated.
• The restrictions imposed are unreasonable, infringing on the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
• The proviso to Clause 3 of Order 2005 creates discrimination by excluding certain traditional performances like Yakshagana, Bayalata, etc. from the licensing requirement.

Respondent (State of Karnataka) Arguments:

• The Order 2005 is a valid exercise of power under Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
• The order is intended to regulate and control activities that fall under the definition of “Public Entertainment” under Section 2(15) of the Act.
• The licensing requirement is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution, necessary for public safety and order.
• The conditions specified in Order 2005 are reasonable and necessary to ensure public safety, welfare, and morality.
• The distinction between the performances requiring a license and those exempted is reasonable, as the exempted performances are typically not conducted in restaurants and do not pose the same risks.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the activity of displaying live band music in restaurants falls under Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, requiring a license under Order 2005.
2. Whether the requirement to obtain a license under Order 2005 violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Whether the conditions specified in Order 2005 are unreasonable and infringe upon the fundamental right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality before the law.
• Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
• Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India: Allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the right under Article 19(1)(g) in the interest of the general public.
• Section 2(14) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963: Defines “place of public amusement.”
• Section 2(15) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963: Defines “place of public entertainment.”
• Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963: Empowers the Commissioner of Police to make orders for regulating traffic and preserving order in public places.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Budhan Choudhry vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191*: The Court relied on this case to define the scope of Article 14, emphasizing that reasonable classification is permissible.
• Ram Krishna Dalmia & Ors. vs. S.R. Tendulkar & Ors. AIR 1958 SC 538*: The Court used this case to reiterate the principles for testing legislation under Article 14, including the presumption of constitutionality.
• Shashikant Laxman Kale & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr. (1990) 4 SCC 366*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate the principles laid down in Budhan Choudhry and Ram Krishna Dalmia.
• State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Indian Hotel & Restaurants Association & Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 519*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate the principles laid down in Budhan Choudhry and Ram Krishna Dalmia.
• State of Madras vs. VG Row, AIR 1952 SC 196*: The Court applied the test of reasonableness from this case to assess the restrictions imposed under Article 19(6).
• Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & Ors. vs. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai & Anr., (1986) 3 SCC 20*: The Court referred to this case to clarify the scope of “in the interest of general public” under Article 19(6).
• Deepak Theatre, Dhuri vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 1992 Supp(1) SCC 684*: The Court referred to this case to clarify the scope of “in the interest of general public” under Article 19(6).
• Minerva Talkies, Bangalore & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. 1988 Supp. SCC 176*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the State’s power to impose reasonable restrictions on businesses in the interest of public safety.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance the fundamental rights of business owners with the State’s duty to ensure public safety and order. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining public morality, health, and safety, and it highlighted that the welfare of the community takes precedence over individual rights. The Court also took into account past incidents where lack of safety measures in public places led to tragic outcomes, underscoring the necessity of strict regulatory measures.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered various factors, including the nature of the activities, the potential for public safety issues, and the need for regulatory oversight. The Court concluded that the licensing requirement and the associated conditions are reasonable and necessary to protect the public interest.

The Court rejected the argument that the licensing requirement was discriminatory, stating that the distinction between restaurants that offer live band music, cabaret, and discotheques and those that do not is reasonable. The Court also addressed the concern that the proviso to Clause 3 of Order 2005 was discriminatory, stating that the exempted performances are different in nature and do not pose the same risks.

The Court emphasized the importance of public safety and welfare, stating that “the public interest, the welfare and the safety of general public always override the right of an individual.” The Court also noted that “it is the prime duty, rather statutory duty, of the Police personal/administration of every State to maintain and give precedence to the safety and the morality of the people and the State.” The Court further observed that “whenever the impugned action is challenged on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, we have to keep in mind the well-settled principle of law laid down by this Court wherein this Court has examined lucidly and succinctly the scope and ambit of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).”

Key Takeaways

• Restaurants in Bengaluru that offer live band music, cabaret, or discotheques must obtain a license under the “Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005.”
• The licensing requirement is a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right to conduct business, as it is necessary for public safety, welfare, and morality.
• The conditions specified in the licensing order are valid and must be strictly adhered to by restaurant owners.
• The State has the power to regulate businesses in the interest of the general public, and this power includes imposing reasonable restrictions.
• The welfare of the community takes precedence over individual rights.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Police Commissioner of Bengaluru to:

• Verify and ensure strict compliance with the license conditions, including all conditions of Order 2005, for all existing licensees.
• Grant a reasonable time to restaurant owners who are operating without a license to apply for one, ensuring they meet all the requirements of Order 2005.
• Close down restaurants that fail to obtain a license after the reasonable time period, after giving them due notice.
• Ensure that no noise pollution is caused to residents of nearby areas due to the performances in restaurants, and take remedial steps.
• Implement appropriate specific safety measures under the guidance of experts to avert any untoward incident due to fire hazards.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State has the power to regulate businesses, especially those that involve public entertainment, by imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of public safety, welfare, and morality. This judgment reaffirms the principle that the right to carry on a business is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the licensing regime for restaurants offering live band music, cabaret, and discotheques, thus clarifying the scope of the State’s regulatory powers in this context.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the legality and constitutionality of the “Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005.” The Court found that the licensing requirement for restaurants offering live band music, cabaret, and discotheques is a reasonable restriction in the interest of public safety and order. The Court emphasized the State’s duty to protect public welfare and morality, and it directed the Police Commissioner to ensure strict compliance with the licensing conditions.