The Supreme Court on September 25 asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) to consider withdrawing the upper age limit prescribed for admission to the five-year integrated LL.B course.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a challenge to the BCI's prescription of an upper age limit for admission to law courses in Rishabh Duggal & Anr. v. Bar Council of India & Anr.
Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the petitioner, questioned whether the BCI's statutory power to prescribe minimum qualifications for legal education could extend to imposing an upper age limit on students seeking admission to law courses.
He argued that the Advocates Act does not confer such a power on the BCI.
The Court is examining the issue in the backdrop of the BCI's Rules of Legal Education, 2008 and the subsequent litigation concerning the age restriction.
The BCI defended the age restriction by submitting that most five-year integrated law courses are residential.
According to the BCI, students who wish to pursue legal education beyond the prescribed age could instead opt for the three-year LL.B course, which is generally non-residential.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned whether the residential nature of a course could by itself justify an upper 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,” Justice Bagchi observed.
During the hearing, the BCI indicated that it could consider withdrawing the age restriction without requiring the Supreme Court to immediately decide the legal challenge to its power to prescribe such a limit.
The Court accordingly asked the BCI to obtain instructions on whether it would withdraw the restriction.
The BCI sought one week's time for the purpose.
Justice Bagchi clarified that the Court was not entering into the substantive legal questions at this stage because the BCI was considering whether to withdraw the restriction.
Justice V. Mohana observed that if the BCI decided not to withdraw the upper age limit, the Court could then proceed to examine the legal issues involved.
The dispute over age limits for admission to law courses has been pending before the Supreme Court for several years.
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 relaxation for certain reserved categories. The rules also prescribed an upper age limit for the three-year LL.B course.
The BCI had withdrawn the relevant age-restriction provision in 2013 after an internal committee examined the issue. However, the restriction was subsequently revived through a September 2016 circular.
The Supreme Court had stayed the September 17, 2016 notification on March 3, 2017, in the proceedings initiated by Rishabh Duggal and another petitioner.
In March 2019, the Supreme Court had also asked the BCI to reconsider the age restriction after hearing stakeholders.
The present proceedings therefore raise an important question concerning the extent of the BCI's regulatory power over legal education—particularly whether its authority to prescribe qualifications for legal education can also be used to impose an upper age limit on admission.
For now, however, the Supreme Court has deferred consideration of that legal question while awaiting the BCI's decision on whether it will withdraw the restriction.
The matter has been directed to be listed after two weeks.
Case: Rishabh Duggal & Anr. v. Bar Council of India & Anr.
Case No.: W.P. (C) No. 1023/2016
Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Issue: Upper age limit for admission to five-year integrated LL.B courses
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy