The court upheld the constitutionality of R. 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Document Writers Licence Rules 1982, stating that the age restriction was made in the interest of the public and based on sound principles.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of declaration, declaring R. 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Document Writers Licence Rules 1982, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’, inserted by G.O.Ms. No. 317 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, dated 23-5-1990, as unconstitutional and illegal and void.

2. The petitioners state that they have been licensed under the provisions of the rules, which enable them to prepare documents to be registered under the Registration Act. The petitioners have licences valid till 31-12-1990 and thereafter renewals are also contemplated. By the amendment made to these rules by the aforesaid G.O. dated 23-5-1990, R. 4-A, reading as follows, was introduced :

“PRESENT LICENCE HOLDERS TO CONTINUE TILL 60 YEARS OF AGE : The persons holding Document Writers Licence as on 22nd & 23rd May, 90 sha11/continue as such till they complete sixty years of age.”

The petitioners state that R. 4-A which imposes a restriction regarding the age upto which alone a document writer would be licensed, is unconstitutional and invalid on grounds which are set out below.

3. The petitioners state that under Art-19 (1)(g) of the Constitution, the petitioners have a fundamental right to carry on any trade business or occupation, and the occupation carried on by the petitioners as document writers is a guaranteed fundamental right. The petitioners would state that upon such a fundamental right, though reasonable restrictions could be imposed under Art 19 (6). they could be only on grounds of public interest and there is no public interest involved in restricting the age upto which a document writer could be licensed.

4. It is not in dispute that under S. 89-B of the Registration Act, the power is vested with the state government to make rules regarding the grant of licences to document writers, terms and conditions subject to which and the authority by whom such licences shall be granted; and one of the terms or conditions that is prescribed by the state government under R. 4-A of the Rules, is the outer age limit upto which alone the licence would be valid and the power to frame R. 4-A is traceable to S. 89-B of the Act. The rule being a statutory rule, this law is a law within the meaning of Part III of the Constitution. The law so made viz., R. 4-A imposes restrictions. The question is whether such restriction is in public interest or not. The licensed document writers are expected to shoulder a heavy responsibility in drafting the document, so that future litigations would not be created on account of vague terms contained in the document. They are also supposed to be vigilant and careful in drafting the documents. The government has, therefore, rightly decided that such exercise of care and diligence could be expected to be exercised only uptill a reasonable period of the life of an individual. In that context, if they decide that sixty years of age would be the outer age limit upto which the document writers should be allowed to practise the profession, that rule can certainly be said to be made in the interest of the public in general. For the same reason, the attack on the said rule on the ground that it is arbitrary and unreasonable cannot be accepted. The rule is based on sound and accepted principles.

5. The next submission of the learned counsel is that S. 89B gives an unrestricted power to the state government to make a law in the manner of its choice and there is no such safeguard as is contained in S. 89-A (4), which requires rules made under that section viz. S. 89-A., to be laid before the legislature. It is submitted that such a law which is made under S. 89-B being only a subordinate legislation, should be struck down. It is contended that in the exercise of plenary legislative power, restriction on the fundamental right can be imposed but not by subordinate legislation. For the reasons stated already, a subordinate legislation is also law and restrictions can be imposed