Licensing for public entertainment venues upheld as a valid regulatory measure with rational cultural performance exemptions.

A licensing regime for restaurants offering live band, cabaret and discotheque performances was upheld as a valid regulatory measure under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The Court treated the licence requirement and related conditions on parking, seating, safety, fire hazards, law and order, indecency and public convenience as reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public under Article 19(6), with no arbitrariness under Article 14. The exemption for specified cultural performances was also sustained because it rested on a rational classification linked to the nature and usual venue of those performances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005, issued under Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, was ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India for requiring licences and imposing conditions on restaurants providing live band, cabaret and discotheque performances. (ii) Whether the proviso to Clause 3 of the Order created an impermissible discrimination by exempting certain cultural performances from the licensing requirement.

Issue (i): Whether the Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005, issued under Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, was ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India for requiring licences and imposing conditions on restaurants providing live band, cabaret and discotheque performances.

Analysis: Section 31 validly empowered the Commissioner to regulate places of public entertainment and to impose controls in the interest of public order, safety and morality. The activities covered by the Order fell within the definition of public entertainment, and the licence requirement was regulatory in character. The conditions in Clauses 7, 8 and 9 were directed to parking, seating, safety, fire hazards, law and order, indecency and public convenience, and were held to be reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public within Article 19(6). No arbitrariness or hostile discrimination was shown so as to attract Article 14.

Conclusion: The Order 2005 was held to be constitutionally valid and not violative of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (ii): Whether the proviso to Clause 3 of the Order created an impermissible discrimination by exempting certain cultural performances from the licensing requirement.

Analysis: The exemption for specified traditional or cultural performances was treated as a permissible and rational distinction having regard to the nature, usual venue and character of those performances. The classification was held to bear a reasonable relation to the object of the Order and the Commissioner was left free to extend regulation if required.

Conclusion: The proviso to Clause 3 was not held to be discriminatory.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the 2005 licensing regime failed, and the regulatory framework for public entertainment in restaurants was upheld as a valid exercise of statutory power in the interest of public safety, order and morality.

Ratio Decidendi: A licensing scheme regulating public entertainment is constitutionally valid where it is authorised by statute, serves public safety and morality, and applies a rational classification with reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).

---