‘Qualification’ under Article 19 (6) of Constitution not limited: HC

Kolkata: Ruling in favour of the state where its authority to prescribe age bar for renewal of licence of electrical supervisors was challenged, contending that the word ‘qualification’ under Article 19 (6) of the Constitution doesn’t include age restriction, Calcutta High Court observed that ‘qualification’ cannot be limited to educational and technical aspects only and must necessarily include age, designation, experience, amongst others.

The Division Bench of Justice Debangshu Basak and Justice Shabbar Rashidi was moved by Eastern Regional Electrical Contractors’ Association (India) Ltd and its members challenging legality of Rule 23 (c) and 31 (5) of the West Bengal Electrical Licensing Rules, 2017 which imposes the age bar under the Electricity Act, 2003.

Two issues were before court: Does the age bar prescribed under the two impugned Rules violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Does the state government have the requisite competence to prescribe an age bar for the renewal of licence of an electrical supervisor as done by the impugned Rules?

The appellants’ advocate submitted that the right to profession without unreasonable restriction is guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g). He contended that the term “qualification” mentioned under Article 19 (6) doesn’t extend to an age-based prohibition in private profession and therefore doesn’t fall within the meaning of ‘qualification’ under this clause.

He also contended that the impugned Rules are not a piece of legislation and therefore not a valid ground for restricting the rights under Article 19 (1) (g). He contended that Section 180 of the Electricity Act, 2003 doesn’t empower the state to make Regulations laying down an age bar for issuance and renewal of license. The junior standing counsel for state submitted that the Act of 2003 doesn’t prevent fixing an upper age limit and that determination of such restriction is essentially a matter of policy which cannot be struck down as capricious or arbitrary. “Hardship is no ground to strike down a valid legislation”.

Observing the Act empowers state government to make rules for carrying out the provisions, including public safety, court said the state chose to impose the restriction since a person beyond 70 years of age wouldn’t be agile enough to discharge onerous duties of an electrical supervisor, therefore, compromising public safety.

“The word ‘qualification’ can’t be limited to educational and technical qualifications only and must necessarily include age, designation, experience amongst others. Age has a ramification when considered in the context of maintenance of public safety,” court said.