‘Condition Is Discriminatory, Arbitrary, Violates Right to Dignity’
Rosy Sequeira (THE TIMES OF INDIA; August 8, 2020)

Mumbai: In a relief for film and television cast and crew aged over 65 years, the Bombay High Court on Friday struck down a condition in two state government circulars that barred them from shoots. The court observed the condition is discriminatory, arbitrary and violates their right to live with dignity.

“Having permitted the film industry to operate and open, subject to conditions, the introduction of the impugned condition that places absolute restriction on persons above the age of 65 years from carrying out their occupation or trade, whilst not similarly restricting persons of the same age who are engaged in other trades or occupations permitted to operate and open, would amount to an unreasonable restriction and hence a violation of their right under Article 19 (1) (g) (right to practice any profession) of the Constitution,” said a bench of Justice Shahrukh Kathawalla and Justice Riyaz Chagla.

The judges quashed and set aside the condition in the May 31 and June 23 government resolutions (GR) to restart the media entertainment industry as part of ‘Mission Begin Again’. It stated that “any cast/crew member above the age of 65 years will not be allowed at the site”.

The verdict was delivered on petitions by artiste Pramod Pandey and Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association, both represented by advocate Ashok Saraogi.

The judges held there is discrimination in the disparate treatment of persons who are aged 65 years or above in the film and TV industry and in the other permitted sectors and activities.

They further said the condition failed to consider relevant material—relaxation in the ministry of home affairs (MHA)’s May 30 order and the state government’s May 31 order. The state’s reply had said the condition is based on these two orders that require persons aged 65 years and above to stay home, except for essential or medical purposes.

The judges agreed with amicus curiae senior advocate Sharan Jagtiani that unlike the mandatory nature of guidelines issued in the previous lockdown phases, MHA’s May 30 order was advisory.

While the MHA order had contained relaxations, there was no corresponding easing with regard to film and television in the state’s May 31 GR. This aspect was not considered by the state, especially in addressing clarifications in the June 23 GR. Rather, in its July 25 reply to the court, it stated if the Centre relaxes this condition, it will issue a similar relaxation.

The judges noted having concluded the condition is discriminatory and arbitrary, they are satisfied that absolute prohibition violates the petitioners’ right to live with dignity under Article 21 (right to life).

They mentioned government pleader Poornima Kantharia’s submission that no coercive will be taken against those above 65 years who choose to remain present on sets.
--------------------------
Court sets aside conditions in two government resolutions that bar cast and crew above 65 from shoots
Sharmeen Hakim (MUMBAI MIRROR; August 8, 2020)

Observing that there is “discrimination” in the treatment of people above 65 years in film and TV industry, the Bombay High Court has set aside conditions in two government resolutions that bar cast and crew above 65 from participating in shoots.

The ruling will come as a boost to senior citizens in the entertainment industry, who were barred from earning a livelihood due to the state government’s restrictions, issued on May 31 and June 23. The government orders were challenged by a 70-year-old actor named Pramod Pandey.

A division bench comprising justices Sharukh Kathawalla and Riyaz Chagla held that the decisions to bar those above 65 from the entertainment industry, while allowing them to take part in other day-to-day activities—taking public buses, going to offices, etc—were against Article 14 of the Constitution, especially since they failed to provide a solid reason for the discrimination.

The state claimed that its guidelines were based on central government directives.

However, the bench relied on the submissions of the amicus curiae, senior advocate Sharan Jagtiani, to say that central and state government orders dated May 30 and 31 relaxed their general conditions, making restrictions on those above 65 years advisory in nature.

“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 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 government. The impugned condition, therefore, cannot be sustained in view of the well-settled principles enunciated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” the bench said.

The bench further said that for a restriction to be reasonable under Article 19 of the Constitution, material would be required to support the distinction.

“Having come to the conclusion that the impugned condition cannot be sustained on account of it being discriminatory and arbitrary, we are satisfied that the absolute prohibition as regards persons above the age of 65 years who earn their livelihood from the film industry (which is allowed to operate), is a measure that violates the petitioner’s right to live with dignity under Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution. And the restriction imposed by the impugned condition in relation to a specific sector or industry that is now allowed to operate, cannot constitute a valid procedure established by law,” the bench held.

The court, however, said that general advisories recommending all those people above 65 years not to venture out for their own good would apply to cast and crew of the film industry as well.

Actor Pandey, represented by advocate Ashok Saraogi, had said that the state government’s decision had brought people like him to the brink of starvation.

The government, represented by pleader Poornima Kantharia, however, said that the guidelines were issued for the benefit of those above 65.
--------------------------
With their productions starring veterans, filmmakers cheer as HC revokes state government guideline banning artistes over 65 on set
Upala KBR (MID-DAY; August 8, 2020)

The state government's regulation that barred actors and technicians over 65 years of age from shooting, as a precautionary measure amid the Coronavirus pandemic, had come under heavy fire from some stalwarts of the industry. On Friday, the Bombay High Court dismissed the regulation after a petition was filed by the Indian Motion Pictures Producers' Association (IMPPA) and senior Bollywood actor Pramod Pandey.

The move comes as a relief to several filmmakers, including Nikkhil Advani, who has envisioned his next, Mughal, with Shabana Azmi as one of the leads. "We are thrilled as several of our productions were being spearheaded by some superlative senior talent. Kanwaljit Singh [69] features in my production that is being directed by Kaashvie Nair. Fortunately, we can now have him on set when the shoot begins by the month-end," says Advani.

Priyadarshan, whose in-the-works Hungama 2 features senior talent, observes that the regulation would have hindered the industry that has veterans Amitabh Bachchan, Naseeruddin Shah and Azmi, among others, at the top of their game. "If these stars couldn't work till the situation improved, it would have resulted in huge losses for the producers," he says.