2003 (8) TMI 542 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Overturns Age Limit on Guides, Declares Clause 17 Unconstitutional Under Article 19(1)(g.

B.P. SHARMA Versus U.O.I. & ORS.

The SC allowed the appeals, overturning the HC's judgment, and declared Clause 17 ultra vires. It ruled that imposing an age limit on guides violates ... Guides by profession - Fixation of age limit for renewal of identity cards for guides - legal sanction behind the conditions - right guaranteed to all citizens under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- The right which is guaranteed to all citizens under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India is to practice any profession or to carry on any calling, trade or business. Clause (6) of the article 19(1) however, places a restriction that nothing would prevent the State from making any law imposing reasonable restrictions in exercise of the right in the interest of general public Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) further provide that professional and technical qualification as may be thought necessary for practicing the profession can always be prescribed and exclusion of carrying on of any calling, trade or business etc. is also envisaged which is also carried on by a State or by a Corporation owned and controlled by the State. Subject to above noted restrictions the valuable right as provided under Article 19(l)(g) is available to all the citizens who are free to choose any trade, business, calling or profession etc. It obviously, also includes the manner and terms in which they will carry on their profession, but again subject to reasonable restrictions which may be thought necessary by the State in the interest of general public. On the other hand, once a citizen voluntarily chooees to join government service or any other service, he would obviously be free to do so but he would be bound by the terms and conditions of the service as may be provided under the law or by contract of service. The conditions of the identity card/ licence issued by the respondent, on the face of it, does not seem to be a reasonable restriction. It amounts to total prohibition to carry on the profession of one's own choice after attaining a particular age. It is true, even total prohibition upon carrying on one's profession can be imposed by way of regulatory measure but for doing so condition-of public interest must be fulfilled. It is not to be taken lightly; it must pass through a stringent test. There are a number of callings and professions in which people are engaged even after attaining the age of 60 or 65 years and in pursuing such self-employment and private profession they find means of their livelihood, without causing any harm to public interest. Such is the case in hand too. The reason which has been indicated in the case of J.K. Agarwal, (supra) which found favour in the Division Bench decision of V.K. Chadha, (supra) followed in the impugned judgment of the High Court does not contain such reasons which can be said to be reasonable enough to curtail totally the right of carrying on profession of one's choice on attaining a particular age. No element of public interest is involved. It is better to leave it for those who are in the field namely, carrying on their profession and the consumers of their services. The purpose sought to be achieved as indicated in J.K. Agarwal's case (supra) that it may promote tourism is far fetched and unrealistic. We have already considered this object sought to be achieved by placing the restriction of age. The tourists are attracted by the place, its beauty, importance and historical background etc. and not because of the more energetic guides. No harm is going to be caused to the general public if young and old people both are professing their profession of guides and are available for the service to the tourists. We find no reasonable ground to have put a condition of age bar, whereafter a guide may not be allowed to continue his profession as it does not fall in any of such categories which may justify placing such restrictions completely debarring him to act as guide. Curtailment of freedom must have some strong reasons and real nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. It would not be imposed merely because it is permissible for the State to do so. Thus, we allow the appeals, set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and the orders impugned by the appellants refusing to renew their 'identity cards' and we hold the Clause No. 17 of the conditions as ultra vires and the same is quashed. The respondents shall bear the costs of the appeals, which we assess at ₹ 10,000 for each appeal. Issues Involved:1. Fixation of age limit for renewal of identity cards for guides.2. Legal sanction behind the conditions and restrictions placed on the profession of guides.3. Validity of Clause 17 under the conditions of the identity card/license issued by the respondent.Summary:Fixation of Age Limit for Renewal of Identity Cards for Guides:The appellants, professional guides, challenged the non-renewal of their identity cards upon reaching the age of 60, later extended to 65, as per Clause 17 of the conditions issued by the Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation. The High Court upheld this age limit, agreeing with the earlier judgment in Virender Kumar Chadha v. Union of India, which cited the physical demands of the job as justification for the age limit.Legal Sanction Behind the Conditions and Restrictions:The respondents argued that the profession of guides is regulated by statutory rules framed under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, particularly u/s 18 and u/r 8(d), which require guides to be licensed by an archaeological officer. The appellants contended that these provisions do not empower the authorities to fix an age limit for guides.Validity of Clause 17:The Supreme Court found that the regulation of guides' profession is permissible but does not extend to imposing an age limit that completely prohibits them from practicing their profession. The Court held that such a restriction is not a reasonable measure in the public interest and violates the right to practice any profession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the freedom to carry on a profession should not be curtailed without strong reasons and a real nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and quashed Clause 17 as ultra vires. The respondents were ordered to bear the costs of the appeals, assessed at Rs. 10,000 for each appeal.