The Bombay High Court quashed the government’s decision to exclude cast and crew members above 65 from shooting. Those concerned welcome the judgement
Kunal Guha (MUMBAI MIRROR; August 8, 2020)

In a relief for senior actors and technicians from film, TV and digital, the Bombay High Court on Friday quashed the Maharashtra Government’s GR that prohibited those over 65 years from shooting in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. This is following actor Pramod Pandey’s petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the GR.

The 69-year-old actor had been rejected from a TV show on the grounds of his age recently. “When the shoots began post lockdown, and only those above 65 were denied work, I naturally felt angry and wanted to do something about it,” says Pandey, who reached out to friends from his hometown Agra for help, but to cover the legal fees and other expenses, he had to part with a family heirloom: his late father’s gold ring. “This judgement has come as a sanjeevanibooti for many actors, lightsmen, junior artists and spot boys who fell in this age group and were compelled to sit at home.”

Amit Behl, senior joint secretary and chairperson - Outreach Committee, CINTAA, welcomed the judgement but regretted the predicament of those who were dropped from projects in the interim period. “Our senior members can now heave a sigh of relief and work peacefully. But those who have lost their jobs or have been replaced in the time it took for this order to come through, is an unfortunate collateral damage,” says Behl.

Actor Kanwaljit Singh, who was dropped from a forthcoming web series on account of his age, is hopeful and excited by the judgement. “Obviously, we are very happy to hear this news. It’s a pity that some of us lost out on some roles but that’s alright, and we’re looking forward to doing some good work now,” says Singh, who is to resume shooting for a Nikkhil Advani film on August 23, where he has two days of shoot pending. “We are delighted that it’s come in our favour,” adds the 69-year-old who was replaced by a younger actor in a web series recently. “They waited for me for too long, hoping the age rule would get amended but finally, I just told them to carry on with someone younger.”

Prithvi Zutshi is another actor who had been informed by the makers of the TV show Pyaar Ki Luka Chuppi that his character’s track is going to be terminated as they had to resume shooting and couldn’t wait for a GR amendment to come through. “I was also replaced from a web series that was to commence in March, but began only when shoots started,” says Zutshi, adding, “But this judgement is great news, and I am looking forward to returning to the sets.”

Actress Farida Dadi, 67, who was to commence shooting for the third season of a web series, but hadn’t heard from the production, is relieved too. “The government has finally realised that you can’t force anyone to retire,” says Dadi. “We have loans and this ban was taking a toll on my mind. Thankfully, the industry has always respected elders and I am sure actors and studios will take all possible precautions going forward.”

Virendra Saxena, who has a few days of shoot remaining for the Salman Khan-starrer Radhe and a series among his forthcoming projects welcomes the judgement. “Every film needs senior actors, and by forcing us to stay at home, we were being made to feel old.” says Saxena, who is to resume shooting for a web series and a movie.

Apart from the threat of losing out on assignments, some actors were put out of commission since their productions were indefinitely stalled by the Coronavirus lockdown. “I am thrilled because this means that one can now work but finding work is another thing,” says Suhasini Mulay, who refused a project recently and the two web shows that she was slated to shoot have been postponed to November and January. “It’s stupendous that Pramod Pandey has fought for the senior artists community instead of just sitting and moaning like some,” adds Mulay.

Even T P Aggarwal, president, IMPPA, is ecstatic by the judgement. “So many actors, producers and technicians were grounded. Now thousands from the industry will be gainfully employed again.”

‘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.

Senior actors question the Maharashtra Government’s guidelines that bar those above 65 on the sets. The final hearing on IMPPA’s petition against the age-limit curb will reportedly take place tomorrow
Onkar Kulkarni (BOMBAY TIMES; July 28, 2020)

The Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association (IMPPA) and actor Pramod Pandey had recently approached the Bombay High Court against the Maharashtra Government’s new guidelines barring people over 65 years from taking part in any kind of work on the sets, given the ongoing Coronavirus crisis. In response, the court, after going through all the facts of the case, asked the state government’s counsel advocate Purnima Kanthariya that when there are no restrictions on 70-year-old shopkeepers to work, how can they stop people in showbiz from working and earning their livelihood. The final hearing on the petition will reportedly be held tomorrow.

The topic has been raging ever since the state government allowed the resumption of film shooting with a 16-page roster of guidelines. Member of Parliament and actress-danseuse Hema Malini, too, had stepped in to resolve the issue. She wrote a letter to Home Secretary Ajay Kumar Bhalla, requesting an amendment in the Government Resolution (GR) regarding this. Talking to BT, Hema had said, “Why make it a compulsion for them to stay at home? Actors can’t sit at home and do nothing. There are so many TV shows that have roles that are essayed by senior actors. So, they should be allowed on the sets.”

Interestingly, her husband, actor Dharmendra, while talking to BT, summed it up with the one line that the entertainment industry lives by — no matter what, the show must go on!

DHARMENDRA, 84: ‘Work is worship and actors should be allowed to work’
I feel like I have just started working at the age of 65 (laughs!). Personally, I would like to shoot, however, right now, I am enjoying my time at our farmhouse. Having said that, there are several senior actors from my fraternity, who are willing to work and make money. I believe work is worship and so, it must go on. Bas safety and precaution ka khayal rakhna chahiye and actors should be allowed to shoot.


NASEERUDDIN SHAH, 70: ‘If you are not 65, but 64, are you at less risk?’
Actors over 65 are too many and too essential to not be accommodated, sooner or later. My worry is about the others in the unit — assistants, make-up artists, camera attendants, light boys etc. Are they also to be banned because they’re 65? And if you are not 65, but 64, are you at any less risk?


PREM CHOPRA, 84: ‘It’s a matter of a month or two, we need to be patient’
I think they are absolutely right in barring people over 65 on the set. It is for the safety of senior actors. If someone gets infected, it will spread to the entire crew. I do realise their problem of being unemployed and not being able to make money, but I feel it is a matter of a month or two. We need to be patient.


KABIR BEDI, 74: ‘It’s not a matter of legislation, but a matter of personal choice’
It should be an individual’s choice. Adults can make adult decisions and senior adults can make wise decisions. It should be left upon the seniors to make their own decisions. And they are sensible enough to take the necessary precautions that are required in a time like this. I don’t see this as a matter of legislation, but a matter of personal choice.

ROHINI HATTANGADI, 65: ‘If shopkeepers above 65 are working, then why bar the actors?’
Everybody has a right to earn their living. If I am hale and hearty, why should I not be allowed to work and have a dignified living? There are actors who are on their own, how do you expect them to survive? Also, there aren’t any restrictions on shopkeepers, bhajiwalas or others. So, why bar actors? The producers should also be considerate. Once an actor’s work is done, he/she should be allowed to leave. This way, you can control the crowd on the set.

Out-of-work background artiste Ayub Khan has been forced to sell vegetables in Bandra’s Behrampada. (Below) Mirror’s July 10 report on senior artistes questioning the government order

Court asks if state will take care of those rendered unemployed and show data to support age cut-off
Sharmeen Hakim (MUMBAI MIRROR; July 22, 2020)

The entertainment industry’s artistes have the Bombay High Court in their corner. The court has asked the state government, which allowed film and TV shoots to resume through its orders issued on May 30 and June 23 but barred cast and crew members aged above 65 from turning up at the locations owing to the Coronavirus pandemic, if it will take on responsibility of feeding all those affected by its diktat.

“There is a commissioner (BMC chief Iqbal Singh Chahal) who says everything is fine in Mumbai... If they (artistes) cannot earn their daily bread, what are they supposed to do? Will the state feed all of them?” it asked, after taking up a petition filed against the government order by actor and writer Pramod Pandey, who has worked in the film industry for over 40 years.

Chahal had last week said the pandemic is close to “bottoming out” in Mumbai, suggesting that the worst is over.

Questioning the reasoning behind the government’s decision to bar senior citizens from film shoots, a division bench of justices S J Kathawalla and Riyaz Chagla on Monday asked if a similar age cut-off has been placed on those taking buses, trains and flights, and attending weddings and funerals.

The state has been directed to file a detailed affidavit by Friday, explaining how a “physically fit person who is 65 years or above is expected to live a dignified life if he is not allowed to go out and earn his livelihood”. The court also asked it if any data/ report was used to draw up the age restriction order. While senior citizens with co-morbidities are considered a vulnerable group, SARS-COV-2 can strike even young, healthy people.

Mirror had on July 10 reported that senior artistes had questioned the age cap and wondered how one’s physical fitness could be determined without examining him/her. In his petition, filed through lawyer Ashok Saraogi, Pandey said a number of India’s top administrators are aged above 65 but have not been told to stay put at home. Asserting that the entertainment industry is many artistes’ only source of income, he alleged that the government order took away their right to work and live, and left them on the brink of starvation.

The state, represented by government pleader Purnima Kantharia, disputed this claim, saying its guideline provides for casting to be done remotely via video chat apps like Facetime, Zoom or Skype. The bench scoffed at this suggestion, pointing out that “actors performing small roles are required to go to the studios” and that no producer or director would allow the provision of shooting via video calls.