CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High 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