Age Is Not a Measure of Competence - But Public Safety Prevails: Calcutta High Court Upholds Age Restrictions for Electrical Supervisor Certification

Calcutta High Court delivered a significant ruling in Eastern Regional Electrical Contractors’ Association (India) Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., upholding the constitutionality of age restrictions on electrical supervisor certifications under the West Bengal Electrical Licensing Rules, 2017. The court ruled that the age limit did not violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as it served a legitimate public safety objective under the Electricity Act, 2003.

The appellants, led by the Eastern Regional Electrical Contractors' Association, challenged Rules 23(c) and 31(5) of the West Bengal Electrical Licensing Rules, 2017. These rules imposed an age-based prohibition, preventing the issuance or renewal of certificates for electrical supervisors after the age of 65, and setting 70 as the absolute limit for retaining such certificates. The appellants argued that this age-based restriction was ultra vires the legislative competence of the State and violated their right to profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.

The appellants’ primary contention was that age does not necessarily reflect competence and should not serve as a basis for prohibiting individuals from practicing their profession, particularly in the absence of empirical data linking age to safety risks.

Does the age restriction violate the fundamental right to practice a profession under Article 19(1)(g)?

Does the State have the legislative competence to impose such restrictions under the Electricity Act, 2003?

The appellants argued that the term “qualification” in Article 19(6) does not extend to age-based prohibitions in private professions. They cited multiple judgments where age restrictions had been struck down, including B P Sharma vs. Union of India, and H D Sailor vs. Bar Council of Gujarat.

The State, however, defended the rules, asserting that public safety is a paramount concern under the Electricity Act, 2003, and that the rules were within their powers under Section 180 of the Act. The State emphasized that the age limit was a regulatory measure aimed at safeguarding public safety, not an arbitrary restriction.

The court upheld the State’s position, ruling that age, while not a direct measure of competence, could be a reasonable regulatory factor when considering public safety in the electrical profession. The court noted that under Section 53 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Central Electricity Authority is empowered to prescribe measures for ensuring public safety, which justifies the State's power to impose age limits.

Addressing the constitutional challenge, the court held that the restrictions imposed by Rules 23(c) and 31(5) were reasonable under Article 19(6), as they served a legitimate purpose of public safety. The court remarked:

“The impugned rules have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, which is public safety. The prohibition prescribed has an intelligible differentia, and the classification based on age is not arbitrary but rooted in concerns for safety.”

The court further reasoned that the term "qualification" under Article 19(6) should not be narrowly construed. In professions involving public safety, factors such as age and physical fitness could validly form part of the qualifications.

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the age restrictions prescribed by the West Bengal Electrical Licensing Rules, 2017, were constitutional and did not infringe upon the appellants’ rights under Article 19(1)(g). The court reaffirmed the State’s authority to regulate professions, particularly those involving public safety.

Date of Decision: October 7, 2024

Eastern Regional Electrical Contractors’ Association (India) Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.​.