Mumbai, Aug 7 (PTI) The Bombay High Court on Friday quashed the provisions of the two circulars issued by the Maharashtra government that barred TV and film artistes above 65 years of age from resuming shootings and related work during the coronavirus lockdown, terming them "discriminatory.

A bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and RI Chagla, while setting aside the GRs (government resolutions) issued by the state, held that such restriction was "iscriminatory", and breached the fundamental rights of the artistes to practice their trade and earn a livelihood with dignity.

Also Read | Samantha Akkineni Dazzles In a Yellow Ethnic Wear (View Pics).

The court was hearing two petitions, one filed by 70- year-old actor Pramod Pandey, and another by the Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association (IMPPA).

The petitioners had challenged the GRs issued on May 30 and June 23 explaining what was permitted and what wasn't, as the government relaxed some lockdown norms under its 'Mission Begin Again' initiative.

Also Read | Pareeksha Movie Review: Prakash Jha's Film Calls Out the Privilege Persisting in Our Education System With a Fine Performance From Adil Hussain.

The GRs said, among other things, that while the state was permitting a gradual resumption of some activities, including shootings and pre and post-production work of films, television and OTT programmes, such cast and crew members who were above 65 years of age would not be permitted to report to work at sets or studios.

The GRs barred such artistes from remaining present in studios or shoot sets.

The government counsel, Purnima Kantharia, told the court that the prohibition had been imposed since those above 65 were at a higher risk of contracting coronavirus.

The petitioners' counsel, Ashok Saorogi, however, argued that such prohibition had been imposed only on the film and TV industry.

While all persons above 65 years of age had been directed to stay indoors when the lockdown was first imposed, once the state introduced relaxations, persons above 65 were allowed to join back private offices and operate shops, among other activities, as long as they adhered to safety and health care safeguards mandated by the government, Saorogi said.

The petitioners said that the GRs, therefore, discriminated against artistes.

The HC had appointed senior counsel Sharan Jagtiani as the amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the case to assist it.

Jagtiani submitted that the state had failed to provide any legal or logical reasoning behind imposing such restriction only on artistes. He had said that the restriction on artistes was arbitrary.

The bench agreed with the submissions made by Jagtiani and the petitioners, and held in its judgement that the restriction imposed through the said GRs did not show an application of mind.

"In our view, the impugned condition is not based on any intelligible differentia (a difference capable of being understood) between any two identical classes of persons above the age of 65 years," the bench said.

"Whilst there may be a nexus with the object sought to be achieved, i.e. to protect vulnerable people from the COVID- 19 pandemic, there is no intelligible differentia between persons who are 65 years of age or above in the cast/crew of films and TV shootings on the one hand and persons who are 65 years of age or above in other sectors and services, permitted under prevailing lockdown orders," it noted.

The bench also maintained that barring such artistes from working was in breach of their fundamental right to earn a livelihood with dignity and to practice their trade as guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution.

"It would be a different matter if for policy and health considerations, the film industry would not be allowed to operate or open for filming and other related activities," the bench said.

"However, having permitted the film industry to open and operate, subject to conditions, the introduction of the condition that places an absolute restriction on persons above the age of 65 years from carrying out their occupation and trade, whilst not similarly restricting persons of the same age who are engaged in other trades or occupations that are permitted to operate and open, would amount to an unreasonable restriction. And hence a violation of their right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution," it said.

The bench thus quashed the restriction imposed through the said GRs on permitting artistes above 65 years of age to resume work.

It, however, said that all other advisories or health safeguards that were mandatory for all persons above 65 years of age would be applicable for such artistes too.

(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)