TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi 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