Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay 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