Delhi High Court: In a case wherein a writ petition was filed seeking issuance of appropriate directions from this Court for quashing and setting aside Clause 2.7 of “The Policy for Archaeological Survey of India (‘ASI’) Photographers to perform within Centrally Protected Monuments” (‘ASI Photographers Policy’) notified by ASI, the Division Bench of Manmohan and Mini Pushkarna*, JJ., held that there was a reasonable classification that had been made by ASI for revalidation of licences of the photographers who had licence prior to 2012 and grant of licence to the photographers who were the new entrants after 2012 who had no prior licence in photography from ASI. Thus, there was no fault with the policy of ASI which was reasonable and fair. The Court further held that obtaining licence by following the due selection procedure laid down by ASI did not in any manner violate the right of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Background
By way of Clause 2.7 of the amended policy, the licences granted by ASI to photographers prior to 2012 were revalidated subject to the said photographers undergoing refresher courses with test conducted by the ASI. The petitioners had worked as photographers within ASI protected monuments since the year 2012 but were not covered by Clause 2.7 of the amended policy as they did not have any previous licence issued by ASI prior to 2012, and thus, were required to take written test, practical/viva-voce for grant of fresh licence as photographers in terms of the amended policy. Being aggrieved by the amended policy, the present writ petition had been filed by the petitioners.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that in accordance with the notification, issued by ASI in 2012, there was no necessity for any photographer to have a licence from 2012 onwards to operate within the Centrally Protected Monuments for the purposes of taking photographs of the visiting tourists. Thus, the petitioners were the photographers who started operating in ASI Protected Monuments taking advantage of the 2012 policy under which no licence as photographer was required. Now, after the notification of ASI Photographers Policy on 24-05-2017 and amended on 17-07-2018, all the persons who intended to operate as photographers in ASI Protected Monuments, were required to obtain a licence from ASI.
The Court observed that all valid licences granted by ASI prior to 2012 were acknowledged under the policy, subject to revalidation and it was clearly stipulated that the licences granted by ASI prior to 2012 shall require to be revalidated subject to the condition that the candidates must undergo refresher course with test conducted by ASI. The Court further observed that all the other candidates who did not have any licence granted by ASI prior to 2012 would have to apply for licence which shall be granted after following the due process of selection. Educational qualifications and experience criteria had been prescribed under the policy and the selection process comprised of written test, practical and viva-voce.
The Court observed that ASI was the Regulating Authority in respect of Monuments of national importance which had been protected under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959, ASI was empowered to regulate the actions and activities within the premises of the protected monuments. Thus, as per the policy notified by ASI on 24-05-2017, and amended on 17-07-2018, there shall be licences for purposes of taking photographs of visitors. The Court further observed that the licences were granted based on various eligibility conditions like age limit, educational qualifications, undergoing selection process which included written test, practical and viva-voce for the candidates who were applying for licence for the first time and for the candidates who were granted licence prior to 2012, they had to undergo refresher courses with test conducted by ASI for revalidation of their licence. Further, the educational qualifications were applicable only for fresh candidates who joined photography after 2012.
The Court opined that ASI required the photographers who were granted licence prior to 2012 to undergo refresher course, with test conducted by ASI for revalidation of their licence and in view of the said refresher courses being conducted by ASI, the photographers who were granted licence prior to 2012 were sought to be updated on the latest photographic techniques with a view to bring them at par with new photographers, enabling them to compete with the new photographers.
The Court held that there was a reasonable classification that had been made by ASI for revalidation of licences of the photographers who had licence prior to 2012 and grant of licence to the photographers who were the new entrants after 2012 who had no prior licence in photography from ASI. Thus, there was no fault with the policy of ASI which was reasonable and fair. The Court opined that there was rationale in the classification and categorization made on behalf of ASI, as the photographers having licence prior to 2012 constituted a separate class altogether and the photographers who were applying for licence for operating in ASI Protected Monuments for the first time, were a different class and could not claim to be at par with the photographers who had valid licences from ASI prior to 2012 in terms of the then policy of ASI.
The Court relied on State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310, wherein the Supreme Court held that “equality does not connote absolute equality and that the rule of differentiation is inherent in the concept of equality”. The Court opined that “Article 14 of the Constitution does not forbid reasonable classification, which is founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out in the group”.
The Court opined that it was palpable that ASI Photographers Policy had been notified by ASI with an objective to regulate the photographers within the Centrally Protected Monuments and to ameliorate the condition and treatment of visitors and tourists in the said monuments. Thus, the Court held that there was a reasonable nexus in the policy notified by ASI. The Court further held that obtaining licence by following the due selection procedure laid down by ASI did not in any manner violate the right of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The policy mandating the obtaining of licence to work as photographers in ASI protected monuments had been notified by ASI in larger public interest to regulate the quality and conduct of photographers for the benefit of visitors and tourists.
The Court further held that the policy was being applied prospectively by ASI and all those persons who seek to operate as photographers in ASI protected monuments were liable to obtain licence from ASI after participating in the prescribed selection process and merely because the petitioners had operated as photographers without licence in the past owing to the policy in vogue at the material time that did not require licence, did not obviate the requirement of obtaining licence in terms of the policy that was prevalent now. Thus, the Court dismissed the present writ petition.
[Mata Prasad v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6376, decided on 06-10-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Taranpreet Singh, Dharm Prakash, Mohd. Shameem, Advocates
For the Respondents: Monika Arora, Rakesh Kumar, CGSC; Vikrant N. Goyal, Jeet Chakravarti, Rituparna Sahoo, Subrodeep Saha, Prakriti Bandhan, Sunil, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
