Rising hemlines at discos appear to be a cause of concern in Chandigarh, India as the city administration recently ruled that "scantily dressed women" or any "indecency" could shut them down.
In its policy, "Controlling of Places of Public Amusement, 2016", which many criticised as absurd and ridiculous, the administration has made all provisions for regulating the city’s discos, citing indecency and sedition as top reasons.
The policy that came into effect on April 1 has curtailed bar timings by two hours from 2am to 12 midnight, and also gives exceptional powers to 'babus' over bar owners, and making running of discotheques an ordeal.
India court says women have equal right to enter temples
Local restaurateurs, lawyers and others have opposed the policy drafted by a nodal committee with the deputy commissioner as the chairman.
"It's moral policing. How do you define a scantily dressed woman or being indecent? It is all subjective," says Manish Goyal, a city-based restaurateur.
"What you may find indecent, I may find innocent. The administration should not reject permissions on such parameters at least."
Goyal added it was a vague and harsh policy and would kill the nightlife of Chandigarh and ruin businesses.
Lawyer Anupam Gupta said the entire policy was flawed.
"The entire notification is completely without any authority of law...under which law or which legal power they have passed this notification," he said.
Here's why students at Lahore's BNU covered campus walls with sanitary pads
As per the policy, the permission to discos can be revoked if it is considered (a) To be indecent or of a scurrilous character; (b) To be seditious or likely to excite political discontent; (c) Any exhibition or advertisement of scantily dressed women; (d) To contain offensive reference to personalities; (e) To promote hostile feelings between different classes; (f) To be calculated to cause a breach of peace.
This article originally appeared on Times Of India
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ