body: A friend of mine recently tried to go into a restobar in India, and to his surprise, was informed that he couldn't because he was a male who was not accompanied by a female. Admittedly shocked, he spoke to the manager of that restobar to find out why, and was informed that due to other peace-disturbing, presumably single males (who caused fights and such), they had to implement such a rule.
  
  
  This restobar is privately owned, but is open to the public without restriction (i.e. doesn't require membership like a club, and such).
  
  
  I understand that almost every place of entertainment across the globe displays this "Rights to admission reserved" disclaimer. However, the second clause of [Article 15 of the Constitution of India](http://india.gov.in/sites/upload_files/npi/files/coi_part_full.pdf) says:
  
  
  
  > 
  > 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 -
  > 
  > 
  > 1. access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
  > 2. 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 general public.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  And then clause three of the same article goes on to say:
  
  
  
  > 
  > Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any
  >  special provision for women and children.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  Thus, by my understanding, the above-mentioned restobar's rule of not allowing single males in is illegal according to the Constitution of India.
  
  
  Am I correct to arrive at this conclusion? Or are there any additional relevant laws that I may have overlooked?
  
  
  
title: Legality of the right to refuse admission by a privately owned restobar