Ark Wellness vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, ARK Wellness, a salon and spa, challenged a notification dated June 30, 2010, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City (2nd Respondent). 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. The petitioner asserted that their business is legitimate, adheres to industry practices and client preferences, and has no history of illegal or immoral activities. They contended that the notification was issued without proper statutory authority and was a blanket restriction aimed at curbing illegal activities in certain establishments, without distinguishing bona fide businesses like theirs. The petitioner also highlighted that they were already complying with directions issued by the High Court in a previous batch of cases.

Held

The High Court, in its common order dated September 28, 2021, disposed of the writ petitions, including the present one, in terms of an interim order dated February 4, 2021, passed 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 include maintaining a register of customer visits with names, verifiable addresses, and phone numbers for police contact. Police officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector are permitted to verify these records and ascertain if customers solicited special services. The police can take appropriate action based on verification results, considering the professional manner of cross-massage services. Police are also entitled to investigate reported crimes. Petitioners are directed not to keep main doors closed during working hours. The Court allowed petitioners to carry on business with precautions against immoral activities under the guise of whole-body massage. The ratio decidendi is that while legitimate wellness services can be permitted, regulatory oversight and adherence to specific conditions are necessary to prevent illegal activities.

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 petitioner contended that the notification was issued without statutory authority, as the relied-upon provisions do not prohibit legitimate spa or wellness activities. They argued it was a blanket restriction based on a misconception of curbing illegal activities, failing to distinguish their bona fide business. The petitioner emphasized that their operations adhere to legal and ethical standards, and the restriction unfairly impacts their business and therapists' livelihoods, disregarding industry norms and customer preferences. They also cited a previous High Court order in WP No. 16281 of 2010 and batch, which permitted massage centers subject to certain conditions, and stated they were complying with those directions. Respondents' arguments: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the petitioner was operating without obtaining necessary permissions from municipal authorities and GST authorities. The judgment does not record further arguments from the respondents regarding the validity of the notification itself.