Age-based bar on renewal of approved guides' identity cards held ultra vires and unconstitutional under Article 19(1)(g).

The statutory scheme governing access to protected monuments regulated guides' activities but did not authorise a complete age-based bar on renewal of approved identity cards, so the condition was ultra vires. The Court held that the provisions on access, fees and related regulation did not create power to impose a blanket disqualification from a self-employed profession. It further held that the age bar was not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g) because it lacked a direct and proximate public-interest nexus, was excessive and arbitrary, and could not be justified by monument protection or safety concerns. The impugned renewal condition was therefore invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory provisions regulating access to protected monuments authorized the prescription of an age bar for renewal of approved guides' identity cards. (ii) Whether the age bar on renewal of identity cards was a reasonable restriction on the right to carry on a profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory provisions regulating access to protected monuments authorized the prescription of an age bar for renewal of approved guides' identity cards.

Analysis: Section 18 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 confers a public right of access to protected monuments, subject to the Act and rules. Section 38 enables rule-making for matters connected with access, fees, and related regulation. Rule 8(d) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 regulates the showing of visitors around protected monuments for monetary consideration, but the statutory scheme is only regulatory and does not create any power to impose a complete age-based disqualification on a guide's livelihood. The provisions do not establish a master-servant or contractual relationship with the State, and the age bar does not flow from the text or purpose of the enactment.

Conclusion: The age bar was not authorized by the statutory provisions and was ultra vires.

Issue (ii): Whether the age bar on renewal of identity cards was a reasonable restriction on the right to carry on a profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The right to practise a profession may be restricted only by reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public under Article 19(6). A total prohibition on continuing a self-employed profession after attaining a particular age can be justified only by a strong public-interest nexus. The age bar for approved guides was found to have no direct and proximate connection with public interest, safety, or monument protection. The preference for younger guides was treated as too remote and speculative, and the choice of guide was better left to consumers of the service. The restriction was therefore excessive and arbitrary in relation to the object sought to be achieved.

Conclusion: The age bar was not a reasonable restriction and violated Article 19(1)(g).

Final Conclusion: The guides' right to continue their approved profession could not be cut off merely on attaining the prescribed age, and the impugned condition excluding renewal was invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: A regulatory scheme may control the manner of a profession, but it cannot impose a complete age-based bar on a self-employed profession unless the restriction is authorized by statute and shown to bear a direct, reasonable nexus with a genuine public interest.

---