Ark Wellness Spa vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Ark Wellness Spa, a registered wellness centre, challenged a notification dated June 30, 2010, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City. This notification prohibited cross-gender therapy services (female therapists for male clients and vice versa). The petitioner argued that its business is legitimate, providing therapeutic services through trained professionals, and that cross-gender therapy is a common and often necessary practice in the global wellness industry. The petitioner contended that the notification was issued without statutory authority, was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as it imposed a blanket restriction without distinguishing legitimate businesses from those potentially involved in illegal activities. The petitioner asserted no complaints of illegal activity had ever been made against its establishment.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of a previous order dated February 4, 2021, in I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P. No. 24410 of 2020. This order permitted petitioners to run massage centres subject to maintaining a register of customer visits, names, verifiable addresses, and phone numbers. It also allowed police officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector to verify these records and ascertain if customers solicited special services. The police could take action based on verification results, considering the professional manner of cross-massage services, and were entitled to investigate reported crimes. Petitioners were directed not to keep main doors closed during working hours. The court allowed petitioners to carry on business with necessary precautions to prevent immoral activities under the guise of whole body massage. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed, with no order as to costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notification dated June 30, 2010, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, prohibiting cross-gender therapy services, is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli? Petitioner's arguments: The notification lacks statutory authority as the relied-upon provisions do not prohibit legitimate spa or wellness activities. It imposes a blanket restriction without distinguishing bona fide businesses like the petitioner's, thereby violating fundamental rights to carry on business and impacting the livelihood of therapists. The restriction is unreasonable and disproportionate, failing to consider industry practices and customer preferences. The petitioner also relied on a previous High Court order dated September 28, 2021, in WP No. 16281 of 2010 and batch, which permitted massage centres to operate subject to certain record-keeping and verification conditions. Respondents' arguments: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the petitioner was operating without obtaining necessary permissions from municipal authorities and GST. The respondents stated they were not interfering with the petitioner's business activities and would follow the court's directions.