Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) whether it will withdraw it resolution dated September 17, 2016 prescribing an upper age limit for admission to law degree courses.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a petition challenging BCI's prescription of an upper age limit for admission to law colleges.

During the hearing, Advocate Radhika Gautam for BCI submitted that she had instructions to leave the issue to the Court. She explained that the rationale for prescribing an age limit for the five-year integrated law course was that most of such courses are a residential courses in which young persons generally take admission.

“Your lordships may determine the age. We have a system where there is also the three-year law. Somebody wanting to do it beyond a certain age can do the 3-year law. Most of the three-year law is not residential. These are young children, young women, young girls. I was 18 when I went to my college. 5-year college that's how it is. Putting them in a…”

Justice Bagchi, however, questioned this reasoning, observing that the residential nature of the course could not be the reason for imposing an upper age limit. He also highlighted that many 5-year law courses are not residential.

Gautam responded that BCI has left the decision up to the Court, and age limit can also be removed with the exception of residential courses.

Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain for the petitioner submitted that the BCI Expert Committee opined that such an age limit violates fundamental rights and principles of natural justice. He said that BCI has no power to impose such a limit under the Advocates Act, 1961. “Power to impose minimum qualification, can it ever be converted to a maximum age limit? The power itself is missing”, he submitted.

The Court asked Gautam to take instructions on whether the upper age limit could be withdrawn and kept the matter after two weeks. Justice Mohana remarked that the issue of powers of BCI can be gone into if it refuses to withdraw the resolution.

The challenge arises from a BCI notification dated September 17, 2016, which revived Clause 28 of Schedule III of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. The provision prescribed an upper age limit for admission to law degree courses.

The provision prescribed a maximum age of 20 years for admission to the five-year integrated Bachelor of Law programme for general-category applicants, with the limit being 22 years for applicants belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward communities.

For the three-year LL.B. course, the maximum age was 30 years, with the University having the power to grant a further relaxation of five years to applicants belonging to SC, ST or other backward communities.

In 2013, the Calcutta High Court had upheld the provision observing that BCI being an expert body in the legal field had prescribed the limit so that students could take admission to the law course at the earliest opportunity and subsequently enrol as advocates or enter the legal profession. The Court held that the BCI's rules could not be ignored and were mandatory for institutions imparting legal education.

The BCI subsequently issued Circular No. 6 on September 17, 2016, restoring the age restriction. The circular was challenged by Duggal and another petitioner before the Supreme Court.

Duggal was then a 21-year-old student pursuing a bachelor's degree in Electrical and Electronics. He contended that despite being otherwise eligible to appear in entrance examinations, he was barred from doing so because he had crossed the prescribed age limit.

The petition challenged the age restriction contending that it violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. They also challenged BCI's authority under the Advocates Act, 1961 to prescribe an age restriction for admission to law degree courses.

The BCI's rationale for the upper age limit was that the age restriction for the five-year course is intended to preserve its character as a direct-entry undergraduate programme, while persons seeking to enter legal education later can pursue the three-year LL.B. course.

The Supreme Court initially stayed the BCI notification on March 3, 2017. The Court subsequently asked the BCI in March 2019 to reconsider the age limit after hearing various stakeholders, including the petitioner.

The issue has remained pending before the Supreme Court.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 1023/2016 Diary No. 41628 / 2016

Case Title – Rishabh Duggal v. Bar Council of India through its Chairman

Tags: