The latest legal battle over Jana Sena Party president and Andhra Pradesh deputy chief minister Pawan Kalyan’s decision to continue acting in films, despite being a full-time politician, has once again sparked debate on whether elected representatives can pursue acting careers for remuneration.
According to the rules, any person contesting elections and elected as a public representative should not hold an office of profit. They are barred from holding posts in business entities, directly or indirectly, or from taking up any assignment that generates income.
This means anyone who becomes an MLA, MLC, or MP is expected to quit their professional career immediately, whether as a government employee or a businessman. At most, they may retain equity shares in companies.
For instance, Telugu Desam Party president N Chandrababu Naidu does not have direct involvement in the Heritage Group, nor does YSR Congress Party president Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy in his business ventures, including Bharathi Cements and the Sakshi media group.
However, questions remain over whether the same rule applies to film actors who turn into full-time politicians. Though they may not hold posts in production houses, they earn hefty remuneration for acting — essentially equivalent to drawing a salary, like a government employee.
A precedent exists in Karnataka, where a ban prohibits state government employees, including bureaucrats, from acting in films or television serials.
In 2012, the Karnataka High Court ruled that employees cannot act in commercial cinema since films are produced as profit-oriented ventures.
The court observed: “A government employee cannot directly or indirectly involve in such ventures even if not for monetary benefit. By acting in films, he is alternatively employed, which is impermissible.”
Critics argue that since MLAs and MPs are also treated as public servants, the same principle should apply to them as well.
The matter has now been raised in a writ petition filed by former bureaucrat-turned-politician Vijay Kumar in the state High Court.
He alleged that Pawan Kalyan, despite being deputy chief minister, continues to act in films to earn money and even misused government machinery for the promotion of his film Hari Hara Veera Mallu.
Advocate General Dammalapati Srinivas countered that there is no prohibition on ministers acting in films, citing precedents involving former chief minister N T Rama Rao.
He noted that the petitioner failed to produce evidence linking Pawan Kalyan directly to ticket price hikes for the film.
He reminded the court that even when NTR was chief minister, he acted in films, and a larger bench of the High Court upheld his right to do so. He urged dismissal of the petition, calling it meritless and a waste of judicial time.
However, counsel for Vijay Kumar sought more time to review the NTR case judgment before continuing arguments.
Justice Venkata Jyothirmayi adjourned the hearing to September 15.