Karnataka High Court Calls For Homestay Policy Says Law Doesnt Cover All Apsects

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday directed the state tourism department’s principal secretary to formulate a policy to regulate homestays. The court gave the direction while allowing a petition filed against the cancellation of the registration of a Kodagu homestay where a US tourist was allegedly raped.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “People get affected. This has a public issue. People come from various states, and they have bad experiences. It creates problems.”

In its order, the court said, “Though the Act (the Karnataka Tourism Trade (Facilitation and Regulation) Act) is applicable for registration, the said act does not cover all the aspects, relating to the tourist who avail the services of a homestay. There being various aspects thereto, namely, fire clearance, FSSAI permission for kitchen being run, licenses and permissions from local municipal authority. The aspect of security being provided, manner of charges being levied, being but a few as regards which several complaints are received.”

The order added that a proper homestay policy would enable all stakeholders to know the do’s and don’ts and comply with regulations.

On Wednesday, a coordinate bench reserved its order on a petition filed by the homestay’s owner seeking to quash a criminal case registered against him over the US tourist’s rape. The bench also highlighted the need to regulate homestays. “Homestays need to be regulated; they have mushroomed to such an extent that we don’t know where they are and what happens there. Everybody’s security is at risk,” the court said.

In the present case, the homestay owner challenged an April 22 order cancelling his business’s registration. His counsel, advocate Angad Kamath, said the authorities had given no notice before cancelling the registration—a claim the government advocate accepted before the court.

The court thus read down the cancellation order, saying it should be treated as a showcause notice and permitted the homestay owner to reply to it by June 24. It also directed the authorities to pass an order within two weeks thereafter.

Based on the US guest’s complaint, the police arrested the homestay owner on charges of protecting the worker who allegedly sexually assaulted her and failing to inform the police about the crime.

A district court granted bail to the homestay owner on May 2 but rejected the bail plea of the 45-year-old worker on June 4.

The accused in the case have been charged under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections 64(1) for rape, 351(2) for criminal intimidation, 238, and 239 for concealing design to commit an offence and giving false information.