The Bombay High court on Friday quashed two government resolutions (GRs) issued by Maharashtra which barred the presence of cast and crew above 65 years of age on TV, film shooting sets.
Setting aside the two GRs, a Division Bench of Justices S.J. Kathawalla and R.I. Chagla said they were discriminatory and breached the fundamental rights of the artistes to practise their trade and earn a livelihood with dignity. The Bench, however, clarified that this would apply to all people above 65 years of age associated with the film/television/OTT industry.
The Bench was hearing a petition filed by actor Pramod Pandey, who has been performing small roles in films and TV serials for the last 40 years, along with another one filed by the Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association.
Both petitions challenged the one condition listed in GRs dated May 30 and June 23 prohibiting people above the age of 65 years from remaining present at the site of shooting of films/television series/Over The Top (OTT) media.
Their main ground was that the GRs were discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 (equality before law) of the Indian Constitution because at the time the GRs were issued, the Central and Maharashtra governments had relaxed the general prohibition on movement of people above the age of 65 years.
In their order on Friday, the judges said, “In our view, there is discrimination in the disparate treatment of persons who are 65 years of age or above in the film or television industry and in the other permitted sectors and permitted activities. The same is not based on any intelligible differentia and no explanation to this effect is to be found in the reply of the State. The condition therefore cannot be sustained in view of the well settled principles enunciated under Article 14 (equality before the law) of the Constitution of India.”
The 37-page judgement said, “If there is no general prohibition on persons above the age of 65 years from working or practicing their trade in those sectors and businesses which are allowed to operate, an age based prohibition in only one industry, namely film industry/TV/OTT, without any material to support its differential classification, would constitute an unreasonable restriction. When the measure being that the condition affects the right under Article 19 1 g (to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business) of the Constitution, the onus is on the State to show that the restriction is reasonable.”
