Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

No Spa Shall Run Without Valid License, Delhi HC Stays Cross-Gender Massage Ban Amidst Illegal Activities Concerns

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Delhi, in a significant ruling, addressed the contentious issue of cross-gender massages in spas and massage centers across Delhi. The case, titled ‘Sh. Anuj Malhotra Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors’, saw the court deliberating over the legality and regulation of such practices in the national capital.

 

 

The primary legal point under consideration was the ban on cross-gender massages in spas and massage centers as per the ‘Guidelines for Operation of Spas/Massage Centers in Delhi dated 18th August 2021’ issued by the GNCTD. The petitioner sought a direction to enforce this ban, citing the alleged proliferation of illegal activities under the guise of such services.

 

 

The petitioner, represented by Mr. Kunal Madan and others, argued that cross-gender massages were being conducted in violation of the aforementioned guidelines. This, according to the petitioner, was leading to illegal activities, including prostitution. Despite multiple complaints to the authorities, no action was seen, prompting the filing of this public interest litigation.

Violation of Guidelines: The court noted that the operation of cross-gender massages contravened specific clauses in the GNCTD guidelines.

Pending Matter Before Single Judge: Significantly, the validity of these guidelines was already under challenge in a separate case, which was highlighted during the proceedings. The court observed that a learned Single Judge was already seized of this controversy.

Stay on Certain Clauses: In an earlier order, the court had stayed the operation of Clause 2(b) of the policy, which prohibited cross-gender massages.

Inspections and Enforcement: The court also mandated regular inspections and enforcement measures against spas operating without a valid license and engaging in illegal activities.

Public Interest Litigation Dismissed: Considering the matter’s pending status before a Single Judge, the court decided not to entertain this specific public interest litigation, leading to its dismissal.

Concluding its judgment, the court dismissed the petition in light of the ongoing consideration of related matters by a learned Single Judge. This decision reflects the judiciary’s approach in managing overlapping legal issues and maintaining regulatory oversight on sensitive matters like spa operations.

 Date of Decision: April 2, 2024.

Sh. Anuj Malhotra Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.,

 

Latest Legal News