Summary
The Supreme Court upheld Bengaluru’s 2005 licensing order regulating live bands, cabaret and discotheques in restaurants. It rested on statutory power over public entertainment and imposed reasonable public-safety restrictions without the alleged unconstitutional discrimination. The earlier decision concerning the 1989 public-amusement order did not invalidate this distinct regime. Police were directed to enforce conditions, allow reasonable time for unlicensed operators to apply, and address noise and fire safety. Closure for continued non-compliance required notice.
Issues
- Whether the 2005 entertainment licensing regime exceeded statutory authority or violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
- What enforcement and safety directions were required.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(14), 2(15) and 31(1)(w)–(x), Karnataka Police Act, 1963The definitions and express public-entertainment regulatory powers supported the 2005 order, distinct from the earlier amusement-only regime. (¶¶ 35, 37, 52, 53, 54)
- Clauses 3, 7, 8 and 9, Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005Licensing, public-safety and operational conditions were upheld as reasonable; reasons for refusal and review safeguards constrained discretion. (¶¶ 37, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 68, 69, 70, 73, 75, 78)
Held
- Restaurants offering the identified performances were places of public entertainment. Section 31 expressly authorized their licensing and regulation. The earlier judgment exempting them from the 1989 public-amusement order did not prevent adoption of the entertainment-specific 2005 order. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 35, 37, 52, 53, 54)
- Requiring a licence and compliance with safety, seating, access, public-order and related conditions reasonably regulated business under Article 19(6). The Court rejected the claim that the challenged conditions were arbitrary, unworkable or unconstitutional; written reasons for refusal permitted judicial challenge. (¶¶ 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 68, 69, 70, 78)
- The exclusion of the traditional performances listed in the proviso did not establish unconstitutional discrimination on the reasons given. The Commissioner remained free to include such performances within the scheme if circumstances warranted. (¶¶ 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76)
- The Commissioner had to verify compliance by licensees and give unlicensed operators reasonable time to apply and comply. Continued failure could lead to closure after notice. The judgment did not direct immediate closure without that opportunity. (¶¶ 79, 80, 81)
- The Commissioner was directed to prevent noise pollution affecting nearby residents and adopt remedial measures. Specific fire-safety steps were to be implemented with expert guidance and checked both at licensing and by regular inspections. (¶¶ 82, 83, 84, 85)
Result
Appeal dismissed subject to enforcement directions. 2005 order upheld; compliance verification, reasonable application time, notice before closure, noise control and expert-guided fire-safety measures directed.