The recent incident involving a man from Tamil Nadu being denied entry to Virat Kohli’s Mumbai restaurant, One8 Commune, has ignited a debate on the relevance and legality of dress codes in restaurants and clubs. The individual asserted that he was denied entry due to his attire, specifically a veshti—a traditional garment significant in Tamil culture. The video of the incident went viral, capturing the man’s disappointment as he expressed his dismay at being barred from the establishment. This provides an opportunity for a closer examination of the legal dimensions surrounding the right to clothing and access to public establishments.
Right To Clothing
Internationally, the right to clothing is recognized as a fundamental human right, aligning with the broader entitlement to an adequate standard of living, as articulated in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Similarly, Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly acknowledges the right to clothing. Furthermore, freedom of clothing is an integral facet of the freedom of expression, a paramount citizen right protected under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
Article 15(2) of the Indian Constitution states that
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and palaces of public entertainment; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public
Right To Refuse Service
However, one has to consider the fact that private establishments like One8 Commune inherently possess the right to regulate admission and service. Like all private spaces, they reserve the right to refuse admission and service for any reason that isn’t otherwise prohibited by law. They can refuse service for reasons such as not adhering to the dress code, using offensive language, or having subpar hygiene. However, they cannot refuse service based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin. It is not uncommon for restaurants, clubs, and bars in India to enforce stringent dress codes or deny entry based on attire. Renowned artist MF Husain faced exclusion from Mumbai’s Willingdon Club in 1988 for being barefooted.
The Entry into Public Places (Removal of Restriction on Dress) Bill, 2014
In 2014, Justice D Hariparanthaman of the Madras High Court, alongside two senior advocates, encountered a similar situation at the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association due to their traditional south Indian dhotis. The 2014 incident led to the passing of The Entry into Public Places (Removal of Restriction on Dress) Bill, 2014, aimed at removing restrictions on traditional Indian attire in public spaces. The legislation in Tamil Nadu explicitly prohibits the imposition of dress code restrictions for entry into public places, including recreation clubs, hotels, theatres, malls, halls, auditoriums, stadiums, and other venues notified by the government. If such an incident had occurred in Tamil Nadu instead of Mumbai, it would have constituted a cognizable offence. Violators of the act would face penal action, including the potential cancellation of licences after notice. Additionally, individuals found in violation could be subject to imprisonment for a term extending up to one year and a fine of up to Rs 25,000. However, except for this specific act, legislation and constitutional provisions do not explicitly prohibit the refusal of service based on cultural or traditional garments.
Done By: Adithya Menon, 5th year B.A, LL.B(Hons.)
Veltech School of Law, Chennai
For Origin Law Labs
