Cross-gender massage doesn’t mean existence of sexual activity, observes Delhi HC

New Delhi [India], December 3 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Friday observed that cross-gender massage doesn’t mean the existence of sexual activity and suggested the Delhi government not to take any action regarding the ban on cross-gender massages in the national capital.
Justice Rekha Palli observed cross-gender massage services do not mean that there is an existence of sexual activity.
The court, however, also remarked that the govt should ask its people to hold their hands. “I am not saying that illegal activities you shouldn’t stop,” the court also said.
The court remark came when the court was informed that the policy was framed to control stop sexual activities at these service centres.
Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra, appearing for the Delhi government, that the govt had framed the policy. He urged the court to allow the policy, which has now turned to be a guideline.
The court adjourned a hearing on various petitions challenging a ban on cross-gender massage.
One of the pleas was filed by the Association of Wellness Ayurveda and Spa in September, which has sought direction to call to prove the existence of any new guidelines issued by the state government as per newspaper reports and alleged guidelines being circulated among members of the petitioner association for the operation of spa centres across Delhi.
The petitioner has sought quashing of the portion of the Notification allegedly been issued by Delhi Government, to the extent of banning cross-gender massage and separating portions of male and female clients.
The petitioner also sought to restrain the government from issuing any guidelines in respect to banning cross-gender massage or creating any separate portion for male and female members, which is neither reasonable nor fair or just.
The petition also submitted that the ban on cross-gender massages was unconstitutional for being in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and assuming prostitution to be only in the “heterosexual domain” is illogical. (ANI)