https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183572 Sections 33A and 33B of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 were analysed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The statutory distinction between prohibited and exempted establishments was found to rest on class-based assumptions rather than an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of the law, so the classification was held arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The total ban on dance performances in covered establishments was also found to be an unreasonable and disproportionate restriction on the right to carry on occupation or business, because the State did not show that existing regulation was inadequate or that less restrictive measures would not suffice. The impugned amendment was therefore invalidated. en-us Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Mar 2017 10:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183572 Sections 33A and 33B of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 were analysed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The statutory distinction between prohibited and exempted establishments was found to rest on class-based assumptions rather than an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of the law, so the classification was held arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The total ban on dance performances in covered establishments was also found to be an unreasonable and disproportionate restriction on the right to carry on occupation or business, because the State did not show that existing regulation was inadequate or that less restrictive measures would not suffice. The impugned amendment was therefore invalidated. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183572