M/S.Waves Wellness vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Waves Wellness, a registered spa and wellness center, challenged a notification dated June 30, 2010, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City. This notification prohibited cross-gender therapy services, meaning female therapists for male clients and vice versa. The petitioner argued that this prohibition was illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as well as the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli. They contended that their business was legitimate, professionally managed, and that cross-gender therapy was a common and necessary practice in the wellness industry. The petitioner also highlighted that no complaints of illegal or immoral activity had ever been made against their establishment, and they maintained strict internal safeguards. The respondents, represented by the State of Telangana and police authorities, did not appear to have filed a detailed counter-argument in the provided excerpt, but the petitioner's counsel engaged with the Assistant Government Pleader.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of a previous interim 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 centers subject to specific conditions. These conditions included maintaining a register of customer visits with names, verifiable addresses, and phone numbers, to enable police contact regarding requests for opposite-sex assistance. Police officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector were allowed to verify these records periodically and ascertain if any special service was solicited. The police were also permitted to take appropriate action based on verification results, considering the professional manner of cross-massage service provision, and to investigate reported crimes. Petitioners were directed not to keep the main door closed during working hours. The Court allowed petitioners to carry on business under these conditions, taking precautions against immoral activities disguised as whole-body massage. The ratio decidendi is that while businesses like massage centers can operate, it must be under strict regulatory oversight to prevent illegal activities, balancing the right to conduct business with public order and morality. Any miscellaneous petitions pending in these writ petitions were 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 in wellness centers, 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 Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notification was issued without statutory authority, as the provisions relied upon did not prohibit legitimate spa or wellness activities. They contended that the blanket restriction was aimed at curbing illegal activities in certain establishments without distinguishing bona fide businesses like theirs. The petitioner emphasized that their business operated with trained professionals, based on client preference and industry practice, and that strict safeguards were in place. They further argued that the notification failed to recognize global norms and customer preferences, constituting an arbitrary and excessive exercise of power. The petitioner also referred to a previous order of the High Court dated September 28, 2021, in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.No.16281 of 2010 and batch), which permitted massage centers to operate under certain conditions, including maintaining customer records and allowing police verification. The petitioner asserted they were already implementing these directions. Respondents' Contentions: The Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the petitioner was operating without obtaining necessary permissions from municipal authorities and GST, as required by law. No further arguments from the respondents were recorded in the provided text.