The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) to consider withdrawing the upper age limit prescribed for admission to five-year integrated LL.B [Rishabh Duggal & Anr. v. Bar Council of India & Anr.].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a challenge to the BCI’s prescription of the upper age limit.
Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the BCI’s power to prescribe minimum qualifications under the Advocates Act could not be extended to impose an upper age limit.
“The power to impose minimum qualifications, can it ever be converted into an upper age limit? This power itself is missing under the Advocates Act,” contended Hossain.
The BCI, however, said the upper age limit was prescribed because most five-year law courses were residential.
“We have imposed the upper limit because most of the five-year law courses are residential. However, the Court can determine the age. We also have a three-year law course. If someone wants to study law beyond a certain age, they can do the three-year course. Most three-year law courses are not residential, but five-year law courses are mostly residential,” submitted the BCI.
Taking note of these submissions, Justice Bagchi asked whether the residential nature of a course could justify an age restriction.
“Not all five-year law courses are residential. See Calcutta University. This is not really a criterion to determine the upper age limit,” held Justice Bagchi.
The BCI’s Rules of Legal Education, 2008 had prescribed an upper age limit of 20 years for general-category candidates seeking admission to five-year integrated law courses, with a five-year relaxation for certain reserved categories. The rules also prescribed a 30-year upper limit for the three-year law course, with a similar relaxation.
The age restrictions have since been the subject of litigation for several years.
The BCI had withdrawn Clause 28 of Schedule III of its 2008 Rules (the provision prescribing the age limit) in 2013, after a one-man committee found that the restriction violated Article 14 (equality before law).
However, aftersubsequent litigation, the BCI revived the age restrictions through a September 2016 circular.
The validity of the restrictions has since been challenged before different courts.
The present proceedings before the Supreme Court raise, among other questions, whether the statutory power to regulate legal education and prescribe qualifications can be used by the BCI to impose an upper age limit on admission to law courses.
During Friday’s hearing, Hossain also pointed to the earlier expert committee of the BCI, which had found the age restriction unconstitutional.
“Their own expert committee, two years before they introduced this, called this completely unconstitutional. The words they used were that ‘this is a total violation not only of fundamental rights but also of the principles of natural justice’. It was withdrawn,” he submitted.
The BCI said it was not entering into the merits of the challenge at this stage. It indicated that the restriction could potentially be modified without the Court examining its validity.
CJI Kant then said the Court would have to pass an order if the BCI was leaving the issue to it, unless the BCI filed its response.
“We have to pass an order now since you have left it to us. Or else, file a reply,” he said.
Subsequently, the BCI sought one week’s time to take instructions on whether it would withdraw the upper age limit.
Additionally, Justice Bagchi clarified that the Court was not examining the legal questions at this stage since the BCI was considering whether to withdraw the restriction.
“We are not on the legal issues because they are taking instructions on whether they want to withdraw it or not,” said Justice Bagchi.
“If they do not withdraw the upper age limit, then we can go into the legal issues.”
The BCI said it would take instructions following which the Court directed that the matter be listed after two weeks.
