Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2539 of 1998
PETITIONER:
B.P. SHARMA
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/08/2003
BENCH:
BRIJESH KUMAR & ARUN KUMAR
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2003 Supp(2) SCR 684
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BRIJESH KUMAR, J. The above-noted civil appeals involve the same question
of fact and law hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The appellants are Guides by profession and held identity cards as
"approved guides". The identity cards were issued by the Regional Director,
Tourism, Government of India, Regional Tourist Office, 88, Janpath, New
Delhi and counter-signed by the Director, Monuments, Archaeological Survey
of India.
The guides as commonly known conduct the tourists to the historical
monuments and other places of interest of tourists and explain the
background and the importance of such places as well as acquaint them with
the historical facts relating to the monuments and many landmarks of the
area. This job developed into a kind of a specialized profession and they
have to handle local tourists, foreign tourists, tourist parties and many
dignitaries visiting the places. They charge for rendering such services.
In this background it appears that it was thought necessary to regulate
this profession and a need also seems to have been felt to issue identity
cards to those persons who may act as authorized guides and charge fee for
the service rendered. So as the guides may be presentable, well-up in their
knowledge and their conduct towards the tourists may be cultured and
ethical, certain conditions have been laid down including one relating to
holding a test which any of such person is required to pass before being
entitled to be issued an identity card as a guide. Detailed instructions in
that connection have been issued in 1979 by the Ministry of Tourism and
Civil Aviation, Department of Tourism, Government of India. A few of the
conditions are that they should charge their remuneration only at the rates
fixed by the Department of Tourism; they would not solicit tips or other
material gains from the tourists; they would maintain good conduct and
behaviour; they would carry out the assignments as may be made by the
Department of Tourism for conducting any tour or site seeing etc. and they
are also supposed to undergo written and oral examination conducted by the
Tourism Department. One of the conditions with which we are concerned in
the present appeals is contained in clause 17. It provides "When a guide
attains the age of 60 years the identity card issued to him/ her will not
be renewed further". It may be pertinent to note that sometime during the
pendency of the litigation, it is informed that the age has been extended
to 65 years.
The authorities, in accordance with the guidelines issued, declined to
renew the identity cards of the appellants, on the ground of age hence the
guides approached the High Court by filing petitions under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India but failed. The present appeals have thus arisen
from an order passed by the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ
petitions. The High Court, expressed its agreement with an earlier judgment
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8
of the Division Bench of the same Court in Virender Kumar Chadha v. Union
of India and Ors., rendered in W.P. No. 10714 of 1991 on September 10,
1992. The judgment in the above noted case deals with and repels several
points raised by the petitioners in that bunch of petitions including the
challenge made to fixing of age. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellants before us, has raised a grievance only in regard to fixation of
age beyond which identity card is not liable to be renewed merely on the
event of attaining a particular age.
In connection with fixing of age beyond which no renewal of identity card
is permissible, the case of respondents is that job of a guide requires a
lot of physical stamina as sometimes they have to take the tourist parties
outside the station and they have also to climb steps and have to walk long
distances in the monuments etc. It is further pleaded that normally a
person after attaining the age of 60 years tends to lack physical stamina,
which the nature of the job very much requires. The judgment in Virendra
Kumar Chadha (supra) refers to the decision of Delhi High Court in J.K.
Agarwal v. Union of India, in Writ Petition No. 948 of 1970 and quoted a
passage from that judgment which reads as under :
"I do not think that the profession of tourist guides can be compared to a
profession of lawyers and doctors. The said professions are primarily
concerned with the mental skills and mental faculties. On the other hand, a
tourist guide is required to perform the function which is basically
physical or manual. The improvement of general health standard is no ground
for not fixing the upper age limit. In most of the employments (Government
as well as private), the persons are retired at the age of 58. It is true
that there is no such thing as retirement in a profession. In that sense a
private tourist guide, who does not bother about the Government’s approval,
is free to carry on his profession as long as he wants. There would be no
age bar. However, the considerations are different when it comes to the
approval of guides by Government. A guide who has crossed the age of sixty
years may not develop any physical handicap. But if the younger guides are
available they would be more energetic and would ultimately be of greater
assistance to the tourist. The validity of the age limit prescribed by
clause 17 cannot be tested merely on the basis of the physical fitness of a
particular guide. Young, energetic guide would certainly promote better
tourism business in comparison. I, therefore, hold that clause 17 is
neither arbitrary nor unreasonable."
The Court then observed in the case of Virendra Kumar Chadha (supra) that
it was in respectful agreement with the reasons given in the judgment as
quoted above J.K. Agarwal’s case.
It would be relevant to consider some of the provisions as indicated by the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents so as to be able understand
the legal sanction behind the conditions laid and restrictions placed on
the profession of guides.
The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of
1958) was enacted to provide for preservation of ancient and historical
monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance, for
the regulation of archaeological excavations and for the protection of
sculptures, carvings and other objects of the kind. Our attention is drawn
to Section 18 of the Act which reads as under :
(
"18. Right of access to protected monument-Subject to any rules made under
this Act, the public shall have a right of access to any protected
monument."
Section 38 provides for power of the Central Government to frame rules for
carrying out the purpose of the Act. Sub-section (2) provides :
"In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8
power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters,
namely :-
(a) xxxx xxx xxxx
(b) xxxx xxx xxxx
(c) the right of access of the public to a protected monument and the fee,
if any, to be charged therefor;
(d) the form and contents of the report of an archaeological officer or a
licensee under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 23;
xxx xxx xxx"
Consequently, the Government framed rules known as the Ancient Monuments
and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules 1959. Our attention has been
drawn to rule 8 which is to the following effect :
"8. Prohibition of certain acts within monuments .- No person shall within
a protected monument;.
(a) do any act which causes or is likely to cause damage or injury to
any part of the monument; or
(b) discharge any fire-arms; or
(c) cook or consume food except in areas, if any, permitted to be used
for that purpose; or
(d) hawk or sell any goods or wares or canvass any custom for such goods
or wares or display any advertisement in any form or show a visitor round
for monetary consideration except under the authority of, or under and in
accordance with the conditions of a licence by, an archaeological officer;
or
(e) beg for alms; or
(f) violate any practice, usage or custom application to or observed in
the monument; or
(g) bring, for any purpose other than the maintenance of the monument,
(i) any animal, or (ii) any vehicle except in areas reserved for the
parking thereof."
The main stress is on clause (d) of Rule 8 which provides that no person
shall show a visitor around for monetary consideration except under the
authority of, or under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence
granted by, an archaeological officer.
On the basis of the above provisions, it is sought to be explained on
behalf of the respondents that by statutory rules framed under the
provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains
Act, 1958, the profession of such persons who may take visitors around for
monetary consideration can be regulated by laying down conditions of a
licence granted for the purpose by an archaeological officer. An
Archaeological Officer is defined under Section 2(c) of the Act :
"2(c): "Archaeological officer" means an officer of the Department of
Archaeology of the Government of India not lower in rank than Assistant
Superintendent of Archaeology;"
The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the powers
derived by virtue of Rule 8 (d) framed under the authority of Section 38 to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8
give effect to Section 18 of the Act by no means empowers an Archaeological
Officer to fix age beyond which a person may not be allowed to carry on the
profession of guide. We find that Section 18 of the Act only creates a
right in the public to have access to any protected monument. It would of
course, be subject to any rule made under the Act, but by no sketch of
imagination this provision can be pressed into service for prescribing any
age beyond which a guide shall not have the right to hold a licence to
carry on his profession. The right of access to monuments given under
Section 18 to the public is apparently not connected with the profession
which is carried on by the guide holding an identity card/licence issued by
a competent authority. As a member of the public even a guide may have a
right to visit or enter into a protected monument complying with the rules
which may be applicable to any visitors/tourist as member of the public. It
is not compulsory that a tourist must take a guide with him. Therefore, in
our view a reference to Section 18 made on behalf of the respondent has no
direct bearing on the point under consideration, it’s indirect impact,
however, we may consider a little later.
Now coming to Section 38, we find that the Central Government under clause
(c) of sub-section (2) can make rules in respect of right of access of the
public to a protected moment and the fee etc. which may be charged
therefor. It is certainly referable to Section 18 of the Act. It may be
that by implication, the access to the protected monument may include the
entitlement of the members of the public to know about the details of the
monument, its historical background and other connected matters, which
information they generally obtain through the guides. Therefore, it could
be considered necessary to regulate the other related matters of right to
access to monuments eg. matters pertaining to the profession of guides. The
Central Government might like to see that the tourists are properly
informed and not misguided or fleeced by unscrupulous guides or such
element posing to be guides, though to engage a guide is optional on the
part of the tourist. In this light we now advert to Rule 8(d) of the Rules
which provides certain prohibitions, saying that no person shall show a
visitor around for monetary consideration except under the authority or
conditions of licence granted by an archeological officer. The purpose of
rule 8(d) is clear that the place may remain protected, be maintained and
be kept and well and no person may charge a visitor for taking him around
the place except one who is authorized as approved guide. His charges would
be, as fixed.
The whole reading of all three provisions viz. Sections 18, 38 and Rule
8(d) lead only to the conclusion that the nature of power is only
regulatory. It does not in any manner lead to creation of relationship of
master and servant between the State and the approved guides; nor even to
any relationship, contractual in nature. It is already indicated in
reference to the conditions laid, that minimum standard of basic knowledge
has been provided for and the conduct and behaviour of guides has been
channelised in many ways but it is to be seen as to whether the condition
of Clause no. 17 can be said to be within the regulatory power derived from
the above noted provisions or not.
It may be pertinent to mention that one of the submissions made on behalf
of the petitioners is that the identity card has been issued and conditions
have been laid by Regional Director, Tourism, Government of India and not
by the Archaeological Officer of the Archaeological Survey of India,
Government of India. As a fact, we find that an officer of the
Archaeological Survey of India has counter-signed the identity card and the
conditions laid down by the Department of Tourism. However, it may not be
necessary to go into that aspect of the matter since no other objection has
been raised before us in respect of any other condition laid down in the
identity card for the approved guides. The case of the respondents is that
the two departments namely, Archaeological Survey of India and the
Department of Tourism; they have to work in collaboration of each other as
access to the protected monuments is intimately connected with the tourism
and the tourists. Therefore, both departments are equally involved ... An
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8
officer of the Archaeological Survey of India has also counter-signed the
identity card and the conditicns laid for their conduct etc. We would like
to leave this matter here alone without going into any other detail since
it will not be necessary for deciding the validity of Clause 17 on the
ground we propose to test.
So far as the fixation of age beyond which it is provided under the Clause
no. 17 that the identity card shall not be renewed, does not seem to be
within the scope of the provisions indicated above. The guides profess
their independent profession. Since they come in touch and have to deal
with the members of public and the tourists from within and outside the
country, the Government of India considered it necessary to regulate the
conditions of their profession. For example the fee etc. which would be
chargeable by them, the way they will conduct their profession and behave
with the tourists and many do’s and don’t’s have been provided. So far so
good, since it is undoubtedly only regulatory in nature and they have to
conform to certain norms laid necessarily suitable for the profession,
which as a matter of fact is for the benefit and to protect the interest of
the visitors and tourists seeking access to the protected monuments. But
otherwise the State or the Government of India does not figure into the
picture in any role whatsoever. There is no relationship of master and
servant between them nor there exists any contractual relationship. No
benefit is conferred nor any emolument etc. is payable to the guides by the
Government. No kind of protection nor any other benefit is provided to them
by the Government. This is as much a matter of self-employment and private
profession, as many others. In absence of any such relationship as that of
master and servant or contractual in nature, ordinarily there would be no
good reason for the State to completely prohibit at its choice, to carry on
a private profession or self-employment, on attaining a certain age. The
High Court expressed its agreement with an earlier decision of Allahabad
High Court in the case of Virender Kumar Chadha, (supra) which in turn
expressed its agreement with reasons given in the case of J.K. Agarwal,
(supra), a passage from which has been quoted earlier. In the case of J.K.
Agarwal, (supra), a distinction has been sought to be made between the
profession of the tourists guides and the professions like that of lawyers
and doctors and it has been observed that while the latter are primarily
concerned with mental skills and mental faculties the former relates
basically to physical or manual conditions. It cannot be said that the
doctors and lawyers do not need to have energy, stamina and strength to
practice their profession, though may be it is required lesser in degree.
We feel that this kind of a distinction is misconceived in the matter of
private profession which is self-employment of a person equipped in a
particular discipline or profession; it is better left to the client,
patient or consumer of the related service to choose as to whose services
they may like to avail of. Besides doctors and lawyers there are
innumerable categories of persons who are self-employed, earning their
livelihood exerting themselves physically and manually also. It does not
mean that they can be subjected to total curtailment of their right to earn
their livelihood at any given stage. We also fail to understand the logic
that young and energetic would certainly promote better tourism business.
The visitors come to see the places of interest, not because of the
energetic guides but due to the importance of a monument, its beauty,
historical background or things like that. If young and old guides both are
available, it would be for the visitors to choose whom to engage; those who
are less energetic may not undertake very arduous engagement and may still
able to perform and profess their profession restricting activities
according to their ability to manage the assignment. At times it is quite
possible that a more matured and elder guide may be more informative and
may make the tour more interesting. Hence, in private professions it is
better left to the consumer of the service to make his own choice, whatever
be the profession. The observation in J. K. Agrawal’s, case (supra) that a
Guide may not bother about the conditions laid for approved guides and may
continue with the work of guide; true there is no such restriction for it
under Rule 8(d) but it cannot be with charges for the job. Where there may
be no such restriction without charges there is no good reason to prohibit
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8
charging for it. A profession cannot be carried on without any
remuneration. Therefore, the line of reasoning adopted in the case of J.K.
Agrawal, (supra) with which agreement has been expressed in the case of
Virender Kumar Chadha, (supra) followed in the impugned judgment does not
appeal to reason. Regulatory measures may be for better efficiency, conduct
and behaviour in the public interest, but ordinarily it cannot prohibit a
person totally debarring him from carrying on his profession at an age
chosen by the Government unless there may be special reasons for it.
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 freedom under Article 19(l)(g) can also be completely curtailed in
certain circumstances eg. where profession chosen is so inherently
pernicious that nobody can be considered to have a fundamental rights to
carry on such business, trade, calling or profession like gambling, betting
or dealing in intoxicant or an activity injurious to public health and
morals. It may be useful to refer to few decisions of this court on the
point at this stage, viz. in [1955] 1 SCR p. 707 = AIR (1954) SC 728,
Saghir Ahmad and and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., [1996] 6 SCC 665 and
J.K. Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers
and Ors. The main purpose of restricting the exercise of the right is to
strike a balance between individual freedom and social control. The
freedom, however, as guaranteed under Article 19(l)(g) is valuable and
cannot be violated on grounds which are not established to be in public
interest or just on the basis that it is permissible to do so. For placing
a complete prohibition on any professional activity, there must exist some
strong reason for the same with a view to attain some legitimate object and
in case of non-imposition of such prohibition it may result in jeopardizing
or seriously affecting the interest of the people in general. If it is not
so, it would not be a reasonable restriction if placed on exercise of the
right guaranteed under Article 19(l)(g). The phrase in the interest of
general public’ has come to be considered in several decisions and it has
been held that it would comprise within its ambit the interests like public
health and morals (Refer to AIR (1970) SC 1157 the State of Maharashtra and
Anr. etc. etc. v. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao and Ors. etc.), economic
stability AIR (1957) SC 414 State of Assam and Ors. and etc. etc. v.
Sristikar Dowerah and etc. etc., stability of the country, equitable
distribution of essential commodities at fair prices (AIR (1960) SC 475,
Union of India and Ors. v. M/s Bhanamal Gulzarimal Ltd. and Ors.), for
maintenance of purity in public life, prevention of fraud and similar
considerations. On consideration of a catena of decisions on the point,
this Court, in a case reported on [1998] 8 SCC p. 227, M.R.F. Ltd. v.
Inspector, Kerala Government and Ors., has laid certain tests on the basis
of which reasonableness of the restriction imposed on exercise of right
guaranteed under Article 19(l)(g) can be tested. Speaking for the Court,
Saghir Ahmad, J. (as he then was), laid such considerations as follows :
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8
"(1) While considering the reasonableness of the restrictions the court has
to keep in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy.
(2) Restrictions must not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature so as to
go beyond the requirement of the interest of the general public.
(3) In order to judge the reasonableness of the restrictions, no abstract
or general pattern or a fixed principle can be laid down so as to be of
universal application and the same will vary from case to case as also with
regard to changing conditions, values of human life social philosophy of
the Constitution, prevailing conditions and the surrounding circumstances.
(4) A just balance has to be struck between the restrictions imposed and
the social control envisaged by clause (6) of Article 19.
(5) Prevailing social values as also social needs which are intended to be
satisfied by restrictions have to be borne in mind. (See State of U.P. v.
Kaushaliya, AIR (1964) SC 416 = [1964] 4 SCR 1002.
(6) There must be a direct and proximate nexus or a reasonable connection
between the restrictions imposed and the object sought to be achieved. If
there is a direct nexus between the restrictions and the object of the Act,
then a strong presumption favour of the constitutionality of the Act will
naturally arise. (See Kavalappara Akottarathil Kochuni v. States of Madras
and Kerala, O.K. Ghosh v. EX. Joseph, AIR (1960) SC 1080=[1960] 3 SCR 887,
AIR [1963] SC 812 = [1963]Supp l SCR 789."
Thus testing the restriction of age, in the light of law as indicated in
the preceding paragraphs, clause no. 17 of 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.
It is always better, nay, necessary too that the freedoms as guaranteed
under the Constitution should be allowed to be enjoyed by the citizens to
the fullest extent without putting shackles of avoidable cobweb of rules
and regulations putting check and restrictions in the enjoyment of such
freedoms. 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8
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.
For the reasons indicated above, 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 Rs.
10,000 for each appeal.