Revenue Authority Cannot Vest Land In State Under Section 79A, Suo Motu Proceedings After 11 Years Fatal: Gujarat High Court Campaigning During 48-Hour Silent Period Is Not 'Undue Influence' Under Section 123(2), Election Petition Must Plead How Result Was Materially Affected: Bombay High Court DVDs Carrying Encoded Data Infringe Patent Even If Stampers Are Outsourced: Delhi High Court in Philips’ DVD-ROM Patent Dispute Departmental Exoneration Does Not Bar Criminal Trial If Key Evidence Not Considered: Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash PSI’s Corruption Case Can't Claim Irrevocable License Under Section 60 Easements Act Without Pleading It First: Punjab & Haryana High Court Ex Parte Decree Obtained Behind Back of True Owner Confers No Title; Appellate Stage Cannot Be Used to Rescue a Fundamentally Flawed Claim: Supreme Court Order XLI Rule 27 CPC | Appeal Cannot Be Decided Without First Adjudicating Additional Evidence Application: Supreme Court Section 498A IPC | Only Allegation Quarrelling Is Not a Criminal Offence, Cannot Sustain Cognizance: Supreme Court Quash Proceedings Eye-Witness Survives 82 Pages of Cross-Examination: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Payment of Tax Receipts Is Not A Conclusive Proof of Possession of Property: Andhra Pradesh High Court Spa Owner Who Personally Received Marked Currency And Promised 'Nice Females With Closed Door Rooms' Cannot Escape Trafficking Charges: Bombay High Court No Person Can Transfer A Better Title Than What He Possesses In Property So Transferred: Andhra Pradesh High Court Unsubstantiated Allegations of Illicit Affair and Attempt to Kill Child in Written Statement Amount to Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Grants Divorce Child Dies Inside Anganwadi Centre After Repeated Complaints About Exposed Wires Went Unaddressed: Chhattisgarh High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance, Directs Statewide Safety Audit 'High Speed' Without Mentioning Approximate Speed Not Sufficient To Prove Rash And Negligent Driving Under Section 279 IPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court 'Reverse Passing Off' Is Not an Actionable Tort in Indian Trade Mark Law: Delhi High Court: SARFAESI E-Auction Purchaser Cannot Be Prosecuted For Undervaluation When DRT Has Affirmed Valuation: Jharkhand High Court Republishing Defamatory Facebook Post On Website Constitutes Fresh Offence of Defamation; Prior Publication In Public Domain No Defence: Kerala High Court One Year Custody Not Prolonged In Cases Involving Attack On Police Post With Explosive Substance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail Bribe Demand Can Be Proved Through Electronic Evidence Even If Complainant Turns Hostile: Rajasthan High Court Sand Theft Under BNS And Kerala Sand Act Can Be Prosecuted Simultaneously; Earlier Contrary View Per Incuriam: Kerala High Court Judge Overrules Own Judgment Sale Agreement Executed As Security For Loan Is A Sham Document Not Enforceable By Specific Performance: 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