Supreme Court upholds law regulating live music in Bangalore restaurants

The Supreme Court has upheld The Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order 2005, which regulates the running of restaurants in Bengaluru hosting live music and performances..As a result of the verdict, restaurants in the city which host “live band music”, “cabaret dance” and “discotheque” will have to obtain licenses for doing so, after fulfilling a number of obligations..A Bench of Justices RK Agarwal and AM Sapre passed the order in an appeal filed by Karnataka Live Band Restaurants Association, a group of persons engaged in the business of running restaurants in Bengaluru..The appeal arises out of a judgement by Karnataka High Court, which held the 2005 order as Constitutional. The order was challenged before a single judge of the High Court on the grounds of violating and infringing Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. However, the challenge was dismissed by the single judge whose decision was upheld by the Division Bench..The 2005 order was issued under Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, which empowers the Commissioner and the District Magistrate to make, alter, or rescind orders issued for regulation of traffic and for preservation of order in public places. It enlists the conditions for obtaining such license, the seating arrangement, and safety standards required to be followed in such establishments..It was the contention of the appellant association, represented by SN Bhat, that it is not necessary to get a licence for displaying Live Band Music in their restaurants, and that such activity can be performed without the licence..The appellants further contended that the 2005 order infringes their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Moreover, it was argued that the order creates discrimination between two like restaurants without any reasonable classification, and thus violates Article 14..The Supreme Court in its order observed that it is the statutory duty of the Police of every state to maintain the safety and the morality of the people. The Act and the 2005 order was observed to be enacted keeping in view the safety and the morality of the people at large..The Bench further observed that the conditions stipulated in the order directly deal with public safety, convenience, morality, and law and order, and are thus not unreasonable and arbitrary. It held,.“The public interest, the welfare and the safety of general public always override the right of an individual. If he (restaurant owner) wishes to carry on such business, he has to follow the norms and the statutory regulation framed for carrying on the business.”.The Court cited examples of accidents that had occurred in the recent past due to non-compliance with safety measures, including the Uphaar tragedy..Thus, it was held that the 2005 order does not suffer from any arbitrariness or unreasonableness, and does not infringe the fundamental rights of the appellant guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution..“Indeed, the Order 2005 has been issued only with a view to control, regulate and supervise the three performances in the restaurants. Since these performances are displayed in a restaurant where public has an access and, therefore, in the larger public interest, these performances have to be controlled, regulated and supervised by imposing reasonable restrictions in law under clause (6) of Article 19(1)..…making it obligatory to obtain licence under Clause 3 to display Cabaret, Discotheque or Live Band is a reasonable restriction on the appellant’s fundamental right to carry on the business of running the restaurants.”.The Court also observed that the order requires the licensing authority to provide reasons for rejecting licenses, and that such rejection if arbitrary, could always be challenged in court..Restaurants hosting live music will now be given a reasonable period of time to obtain the licence. Failure to obtain a licence after this period would result in closure of the restaurant..While concluding its judgment, the Bench also observed that there was no specific provision regulating noise pollution in the order, and directed the Commissioner of Police to ensure that the same is kept in check..“…what we find is that there is no specific clause/condition dealing with control of noise pollution which is likely to create or rather bound to create due to regular display and performance of the three activities in the restaurants thereby causing disturbance, annoyance and inconvenience to the near residents of the nearby area. The Commissioner shall ensure that no noise pollution is caused to residents of the nearby area due to any of the three performances in any restaurant and that remedial steps are taken in that behalf.”.Read the judgment: