Professional Documents
Culture Documents
B.Ashok
.. Petitioner
vs.
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Union Law and Justice,
Government of India,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Law and Justice,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai.
3. National Legal Knowledge Council,
New Delhi.
4. The Secretary,
Bar Council of India,
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
Near Bal Bhavan,
New Delhi.
5. The Chairman,
Legal Education Committee,
... Respondents
Law
(LS)
Department,
dated
03.06.2015
and
stated in the Legal Education Rule, 2008 either on the Legal Education
Committee of the Bar Council of India or on the National Legal Knowledge
Council.
(Prayed amended as per order of this Court, dated 02.07.2015, made in
M.P.(MD) No.4 of 2015)
For Petitioner
For R1
...
...
Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan
Mr.G.R.Swaminathan
Assistant Solicitor General
of India
For R2
...
Mr.A.L.Somayaji
Advocate General
for Mr.M.Alagadevan,
Special Government Pleader
For R4
...
Mr.S.R.Rajagopal
For R6
...
Mr.D.Selvam
for Mr.M.Subash Babu
For R8
...
Mr.R.Alagarsamy
ORDER
(Order of this Court was made by S. MANIKUMAR, J.)
Mr.B.Ashok, a practising Advocate of Madurai Bench of the Madras
High Court, has sought for a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the notification
of the Secretary, Bar Council of India, New Delhi, the 4th respondent
5
Saturday, September 28, 2013.
corrections and deleted three lines of the first page of this report.
The modified
6
Education Rules regarding maximum age for admission into law courses) has
been challenged before various High Courts where interim orders to take
admission has been given by the Courts and the same has been filed before the
Supreme Court and the T.P.has been allowed as T.C. But it is still pending.
The service has not been completed because the Respondents' addresses
were not found. The same had been placed before the Council which decided
to publish their names in the National Newspaper.
In the publication,
7
the Interim order would continue and their admission should not
be cancelled on the ground that they did not fulfil the criteria of
maximum age.
Similar order has been passed by the Hon'ble Court in the matter below:
1.Nittan Gupta Vs. Bar Council of India 5258/2010;
2.Rajan Sharma Vs. Bar Council ofINdia 20966/2010;
3.Janaka Raj Vs.Bar Council of India 12097/2009; and
4.Lt.Col.(Retd.)Harjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
Haryana 11947/2009.
There are other professional courses such as B.Ed., C.A., C.S., and
M.B.A., there is no upper age limit to take admission in the professional
courses even in the medical courses some of the states do not have upper age
limit. Restriction of the age to take admission violates the fundamental right,
Article-19 of the Constitution of India.
Article 19(1)(g) give fundamental right to every citizen to practice any
profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Recently Hon'ble Supreme Court held that National Eligibility-cumentrance Test for admission to M.B.B.S. And B.D.S.Course proposed by MCI was
in contravention of Article 19(1)(g).
The undisputed facts are that the Bar Council of India is a statutory
body constituted under Section-4 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the
Advocates Act'). It is competent to lay down the standards of legal education
and recognition of the degree in law for admission as an advocate. Section-7
of the Advocates Act lays down the functions of the Bar Council of India which
includes promotion of legal education and to lay down standards of such
education in consultation with the Universities in India and the State Bar
Councils. Sections 15 and 49 of the Advocates Act further empower the Bar
8
Council of India to frame rules for carrying out all its functions.
On 14.09.2008, the Bar Council of India passed Resolution No.110/2008
and formulated 'the Rules'.
appended
to
'the
rule'
prescribes
the
minimum
9
A bare perusal of Clause-28(a) shows that the maximum age for seeking
admission into a stream of integrated Bachelor of Law degree programme
(which is of 5 years duration) the age has been limited to 20 years in case of
General category applicants and 22 years in case of applicants belonging to SC,
ST and Other Backward Communities. Similarly, Clause-28(b) prescribes a cap
of 30 years in respect of General category applicants as the maximum age
limit for seeking admission into a 3 years Bachelor Degree Course in Law.
However, in the case of SC, ST and Other Backward Community applicants, the
concerned University has the right to give a concession of 5 years.
The question arises, as to whether the Bar Council of India is competent
to frame the Rules barring a person above the age of 45 years from enrolment
as an Advocate was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Indian Council of Legal Aid and advice and others Vs. Bar Council of India and
another (1995) 1SCC 732. IN Para 9 of the Judgment, it has been held by their
Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court that Rule which operates at preenrolment stage cannot receive the shelter of Clause (ah) of Section 49(1) of
the Advocates Act. Para-8 of the Judgment, which deals with the issue, reads
as under:-8.The newly added rule seeks to bar the entry of persons who
have completed the age of 45 years on the date of application for
enrolment as an advocate from being enrolled as such by the
State Bar Council concerned.
10
the Bar Council of India under Section 49(l) of the Act are in
seven parts, each part having it own chapter. Part-VI is entitled
rules governing Advocatesand the said part has three chapters.
Chapter-I sets out the restrictions on senior advocates and is
relatable to Sections 16(3)and 49(1)(g) of the Act. Chapter-II lays
down the standards of professional conduct and etiquette and is
relatable to Section 49(1)9c) read with the proviso thereto and
Chapter-III deals with Conditions for right to practice: and is
stated to be made in exercise of power under clause (ah) of subsection (1) of Section-49 of the Act. That clause reads as under:(ah)the conditions subject to which an advocate
shall have the right to practice and the circumstances under
which a person shall be deemed to practice as an advocate
in a court.
On the plain language of the said clause it seems clear to
us that under the said provision the Bar Council of India can lay
down the 'conditions' subject to which an advocate shall have
the right to practice. These conditions which the Bar Council of
India can lay down are applicable to an advocate I.e.a person
who has already been enrolled as an advocate by the State Bar
Council concerned.
The rule
11
therefore, receive the shelter of clause (ah) of Section 49(1) of
the Act.
12
years' Course or LL.B., three years' Course.
I find that the provisions of Clause-28 of Schedule-III appended to the
Rules are beyond the legislative competence of the Bar Council of India.
Clause-28 ultra vires the provision of Section 7(1)(h) and (I) and 24(1)(c)(iii)
and (iiia) of Section 49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act.
Even
13
Legal Education Prescription of age limit for admission to 3 year and 5
year Law degree courses Orders issued.
Law (LS) Department
G.O.(Ms)No.194
Dated 03.06.2015
kd;kj tUlk; - itfhrp 20
jpUts;Sth; Mz;L 2046
Read:
14
(ii)For the 3 year B.L.course, 30 years for general category applicants
and 35 years for SC/ST/OBC applicants.
3.Subsequent to the Bar Council of India's Rules of Legal Education,
from the academic year 2009-2010 upper age limits have been prescribed for
admission to the 3 year law degree course and the 5 year law degree course in
Tamil Nadu.
4.In 2013, the Bar Council of India withdrew the rule pertaining to age
restriction because the Punjab and Haryana High Court struck down the
provision on the ground that the Rules are beyond the legislative competence
of the Bar Council of India.
5.The Director of Legal Studies in his letter 1st read above has
recommended that the age restriction which is in force at present for
admission to Government Law Colleges may continue in the interest of the
legal education.
6.The Registrar (i/c), Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai
in his letter 2nd read above, has requested the Government to issue necessary
instructions/orders as to whether admission to various law courses offered in
the existing affiliated Government Law Colleges by the Tamil Nadu
Dr.Ambedkar Law University is to follow the existing eligibility criteria for age
as it is in practice till the academic year 2014-2015.
7.The Government after careful consideration have decided to revert to
15
the pre 2008-2009 position and accordingly, the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law
University is directed to prescribe no age limit for 3 year Law degree course
and an upper age limit of 21 years (except for SC/ST candidates) for 5 year
integrated Law degree course in the Government Law Colleges and in the
Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, as followed upto the academic year
2008-2009.
(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)
S.S.POOVALINGAM,
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (i/c).
Duration
Qualifying Examination
Eligible Minimum
Marks
(in
all
Maximum
subjects)*
Limit
(as
SC/ST OTHERS
01.06.2015)
SC/ST
B.A.LL.B.(Hons.)
5 Years
70%
No
Age
on
OTHERS
21
16
Degree Course
Examinations recognized
as equivalent thereto.
Age
Years
Limit
B.B.A.LL.B.(Hons.)
Degree Course
5 Years
HSC(10+2)
with
Commerce
group
subjects/Other
Examinations
with
relevant
subjects
recognised as equivalent
thereto./
B.C.A.LL.B.(Hons.)
Degree Course
5 Years
LL.B.(Hons.)
Degree Course.
3 Years
Any
Degree
viz., 55%
B.A./B.Sc.,/B.Com./B.B.A
./B.E./B.Tech./M.B.B.S./
B.Pharm., etc.
60%
No Age Limit
*NRI candidates: Eligibility Minimum marks for all 5 year Integrated Honours
Courses: 60% and 3 year LL.B.(Hons).55%
P.G.PROGRAMMES (C.B.C.S.) (REGULAR)
Course
Duration
Branch
Specialisation
Eligibility
Intellectual Property
Law
II
Business law
III
Constitutional
Rights
IV
LL.M.Degree
2 years
International
Organization
Environmental
Order
Law
&
Law
Law
and
Human A
pass
in
B.L./LL.B. (either
5 years or 3 years
with 45% under
and new regulations or
40%
under
old
regulations
Legal
17
VI
Administration
Human
Rights
Education
and
Duties
VII
Labour and Administrative Law
VIII
Taxation Law
IX
Duration
M.C.L.
2Years
Specialisation
Eligibility
Human
Rights
&
(P.G.D.H.R. & DE)
Duties
Cyber Forensic
(P.G.D.C.F.&I.S)
Internet
and
Education
Security
& Forensic
18
6 months
Course in Documentation
HSC(10+2) or equivalent
Duration
Qualifying Examination
B.A.LL.B.
Course
Degree 5 Years
2.
OTHERS SC/ST
45%
45%
Age
on
OTHERS
No Age
21
Limit
Years
No Age Limit
19
education, the Bar Council of India, New Delhi, the 4th respondent herein,
incorporated the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, in Part IV of the Bar
Council of India Rules, by exercising the powers, under Section 7(1)(h)
and (i), 24(I)(c)(iii) and (iiia), 49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act,
1961. These rules have been framed by the Bar Council of India, in
consultation with the Universities and the State Bar Councils. After due
approval, the Bar Council of India, adopted the same, in its meeting held
on 14.09.2008, vide resolution No.110 of 2008.
4.
For the first time in the history of legal education, upper age
limit has been fixed. The maximum age limit for applying to a three year
degree law course, is 30 years, with five years of extension for SC/ST and
other backward communities. Accordingly, prospectus was issued by the
Government of Tamil Nadu. W.P.No.14877 of 2009 was filed before the
Principal Bench of this Court, with a prayer, challenging the prospectus,
issued for three year B.L.Degree Course 2009-10. A consequential prayer
was also sought for, directing the
application for the three year B.L. Course admission, by relaxing the
instructions specified in Column No.2(iii) and to condone the excess eight
days. The said writ petition was dismissed, upholding the age limit for
20
applying to degree course and that the said decision is reported in 2009
(8) MLJ 1677 [M.Santhosh Antony Vareed v. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu
Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai].
5.
Bar Council of India has filed a counter affidavit, stating that the Punjab
and Haryana High Court has allowed a number of writ petitions, quashing
Clause 28, Schedule III to Part IV of Rules of Legal Education, 2008, fixing
age limit for admission incorporated in the Rules, as ultra vires and
contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. In W.P.No.11407 of
2013, an interim order was passed by this Court. Being aggrieved by the
21
writ petition, is to the effect that in the writ petitions, filed before the
Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and other High Courts, challenging the upper
age limit for admission to Law Colleges, interim stay has been granted
and hence, the Bar Council of India has filed Transfer Petitions in
Tr.C.M.P.Nos.857 to 866 of 2009 before the Apex Court, to hear all the
matters, along with S.L.P.(CC)Nos.14408 to 14412 of 2013.
8.
Studies for the B.A., B.L., (Hons.) Degree Course, held on 10.01.2009, it
was resolved to recommend to the Syndicate for the adoption of age on
admission as prescribed in the Bar Council of India Rules, 2008, from the
academic year 2009-10, recommended by its Legal Education Committee,
for implementation by the Universities imparting legal education. The
resolution of the said Board of Studies was approved by the Syndicate at
its 92nd Meeting held on 21.01.2009.
22
Council of India.
9.
sought for the views of the following legal luminaries and experts,
23
of
Law,
University
of
Delhi;
Dr.
Usha
24
11.
the experts and various eminent persons, the Committee submitted its
report on 06.10.2009, in favour of upholding the Rules of Legal Education,
2008. In addition, the Committee has also opined that the All India Bar
Examinations should be introduced by the Bar Council of India, as a
requirement, prior to enrolment by the State Bar Councils.
The
25
Subramaniam, the then Solicitor General of India, submitted that the first
bar examination would be conducted in July, 2010, by a specially
constituted independent body. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further
directed the Central Government to ensure that the entire programme
framed by the Three Member Committee, is operationalised forthwith.
Thus, the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, was impliedly approved by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, which also contains, Clause 28 of Schedule III of
the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, regarding prescription of upper age
limit for applying to three year degree course.
12.
When the matter stood thus, the newly elected Bar Council
Tamil
Nadu
Dr.Ambedkar
Law
University,
Chennai],
26
has
recommended
for
its
deletion.
The
Committee's
13.
Pro bona litigant has further submitted that when the Bar
27
14.
28
15.
16.
29
maintain the legal standards, quality in education and that is why, before
incorporating the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, views of many experts
were taken into consideration.
17.
Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India shall promote legal education and to
lay down standards of such education, in consultation with the
Universities in India, imparting such education and the State Bar Councils.
As per Section 10(2)(b) of the said Act, the Bar Council of India shall
constitute a legal education committee, consisting of ten members, of
whom, five shall be persons elected by the Council from amongst its
members and five shall be persons co-opted by the Council, who are not
members thereof. He also invited the attention of this Court to Section 15
of the abovesaid Act and submitted that the Bar Council of India is
empowered to make rules.
18.
30
19.
matters, relating to State Council and Part IV, dealing with the rules of
legal education, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Rules of Legal Education, 2008, have been framed to monitor the
standards of legal education and recognition of degrees in law, for the
purpose of enrolment as advocate and inspection of Universities for
recognizing its degree in law, under Sections 7(1)(h) and (i), 24(1)(c)(iii)
and (iiia), 49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961. He
submitted that the notifications now impugned in this writ petition, are
contrary to the abovsaid Statutory provisions.
31
20.
21.
32
inter
alia,
includes
curriculum,
teaching
methods,
22.
23.
that when the Bar Council of India had agreed to lay down the standards
of legal education, including admission of students and when the decision
of this Court in M.Santhosh Antony Vareed's case (cited supra), has been
upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, then there is no need for appointment
of a One Man Committee. He also submitted that when the Three Member
Committee Reports were directed to be placed before the Bar Council of
India and Legal Education Committee and accordingly, when a emergency
meeting of the Bar Council of India and Legal Education Committee was
33
24.
when the
Supreme Court of India, was to the effect that Clause 28 of the Legal
Education Rules, is in conformity with Sections 7(1)(h) and (i),
24(1)(c)(iii) and (iiia), 49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961
and when the Apex Court has accepted the Three Member Committee
Reports, regarding the age on admission to law courses, one of the issues
involved in S.L.P.(C)No.22337 of 2008 and when the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has directed the Central Government to ensure that the entire
programme
framed
by
the
Three
Member
Committee,
to
be
34
25.
of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary, Bar Council
of India, in SLP(Civil)No.1346 of 2010 (M.Santhosh Antony Vareed vs.
The Registrar Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University and others),
and submitted that when the rule prescribing upper age, for admission to
law degree courses, was challenged, the Bar Council of India, affirming
the process followed before making the rule, has filed a counter affidavit
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and submitted that the rules have been
framed, only after consultation with the Universities, imparting legal
education and State Bar Councils, under Section 7(1)(h)(i) 24(1)(c), with
effect from the academic year 2008-09, and that the Bar Council of India
has also submitted that any academic course requires a specific age limit,
for admission. He also submitted that the Bar Council of India, in its
counter affidavit, before the Hon'ble Apex Court, has also submitted that
a young mind can be moulded, and matured mind cannot be moulded
35
very easily. He therefore submitted that when the Bar Council of India
had accepted the report and reiterated the procedure followed, for
amending the Rules, quite contrary to the same, the Bar Council of India
has appointed a One Man Committee, ignoring the procedure hitherto
followed, and the stand taken before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
26.
Punjab and Haryana High Court, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that before the said Court, there was no representation by the
Bar Council of India, when Clause 28 of the Rules of Legal Education,
2008, was challenged.
27.
Council of Legal Aid & Advice v. Bar Council of India], which decided
the question, as to whether, a person, who has completed the age of 45
years, on the date of which, he submits his application for his enrolment,
as an Advoate, to the State Bar Council and whether he can be enrolled,
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 7(1)(h) of the
Advocates Act, 1961, was not considered in the said judgment and that
36
28.
37
same shall also be notified in the website of the BCI for enforcing the
provision.
29.
30.
proceeded on the sole premise that there were divergent views expressed
by different Hon'ble High Courts and hence, there is a violation of
fundamental rights. According to the One Man Committee, Rule 28, in
Schedule III to Part IV of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, prescribing
the upper age for admission, is ultra vires and unconstitutional.
38
31.
stand of the Bar Council of India, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when there
is a specific procedure for amending the rules and when provision under
Rule 47 of the Bar Council of India Rules, makes it clear that any
amendment proposed by the Bar Council of India, shall be only on the
consideration of the representation of the Legal Education Committee
and in the absence of any materials to indicate that the Legal Education
Committee of the Bar Council of India has recommended for any
amendment to the schedule, appointment of One Man Committee, to go
into the issue of age limit for admission for Law Degree course, itself is
illegal, contrary to the procedure, contemplated under the Statutory
Rules and therefore, the report has no sanctity.
32.
39
Bar Council of India and all other bodies, constituted in pursuance of the
Advocates Act, 1961, after the rules come into force.
33.
34.
40
authority to resolve the dispute and that the One Man Committee has no
jurisdiction to go into the said issue.
35.
petitioner that even taking it for granted that the Bar Council of India had
taken note of the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the
divergent views, expressed by other High Courts, on the aspect of
prescribing
Council of India, should have referred the dispute to the Legal Education
Committee of the Bar Council of India, who shall be the dispute
resolution body for all disputes relating to legal education and that a One
Man Committee ought not to have appointed and consequently, the
acceptance of the report of the One Man Committee, by the Bar Council
of India and deletion of Clause 28 of the Legal Education Rules, 2008, is
wholly, without jurisdiction and inconsistent with Rule 43 of the Bar
Council of India Rules.
36.
Bar Council of India, in its resolution, dated 29.08.2013, has accepted the
One Man Committee's report and issued the impugned notification, dated
03.06.2015, the same cannot be saved, even under Rule 46 of the Bar
41
Council of India Rules, wherein, the saving clause can protect only the
action, decision or direction taken by the Bar Council of India, under the
Rules and Regulations, in force at any time and therefore, the decision of
the Bar Council of India, to appoint the One Man Committee, after
coming into force of the Rules, is not in accordance with the statutory
rules.
37.
withdrawal of SLPs filed by the Bar Council of India has no nexus with the
object sought to be achieved. He further added that the Law Commission
Reports, for the purpose of improving the standards and quality of Legal
Education have been accepted by the Bar Council of India and further
reports of the Three Member Committee constituted and placed before
the Apex Court, cannot be given a go-by, by the Bar Council of India,
solely on the basis of a One Man Committee. At this juncture, attention
of this Court was also brought to the report of the Three Member
Committee, wherein, the Committee has opined as follows:
The Committee, therefore, is of the view that the
standards of legal education provided for in the 2008 BCI
Rules, including the provisions on inspection, recognition
42
and
accreditation,
are
in
consonance
with
the
38.
Member Committee has also opined that Chapter IV of the 2008 BCI Rules
contains provisions vis-- vis the Directorate of Legal Education, the
responsibility of which include: (a) Continuing Legal education, (b)
Teachers training, (c) Advanced specialized professional courses, (d)
Education program for Indian students seeking registration after obtaining
Law Degree from a Foreign University, (e) Research on professional Legal
Education and Standardization, (f) Seminar and workshop, (g) Legal
Research, (h) any other assignment that may be assigned to it by the
Legal Education Committee and the Bar Council of India.
39.
43
40.
44
High Court and accepting his report, which is purely based on his own
views and thus, passing a resolution, would amount to nullifying the
decision of this Court and the Apex Court in Santhosh Antony Vareed's
case (cited supra) and that the same cannot be accepted. In this context,
attention of this Court was also invited to Paragraph 19 of K.Sakthi Rani's
case (cited supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has
framed a specific question, as to whether, the Rules of Legal Education,
2008, are in accordance with the powers conferred under Sections 7(1)(h)
& (i), 24(1)(c)(iii) and (iiia), 49(a)(af), (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act,
1961 or not?
41.
of Tamil Nadu v. K.Shyam Sunder reported in 2011 (4) CTC 874, on the
aspect of nullifying the decision of a Court and further contentions were
made that earlier, the Bar Council of India has framed the Legal Educatin
Rules, 2008, in consultation with the experts and taken a specific stand
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that prescription of age, was to
promote the standands of legal education, got it approved and
subsequently, now a different stand is taken before this Court.
45
42.
counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, were not challenged and what
was challenged was only the notification issued by the University and
hence, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said decision
is not applicable to the said case. He further submitted that the
impugned notification, dated 28.09.2013 of the Bar Council of India, does
not say anything about the procedure that was followed, before making
the amendment to the Rules.
43.
along the Bar Council of India and the Legal Education Committee of the
Bar Council of India have decided to implement the Rules of Legal
Education, 2008 and there is no reason, as to why it should be changed.
44.
46
State cannot avoid its responsibilities, thereby, abdicate its powers to the
Bar Council of India, ignoring its role to be played, in the matter of
promotion of Legal Education and laying down the standards of such
education. He submitted that the State Government cannot be a silent
spectator.
45.
the
petitioner
submitted
that
Bar
Council
of
India
is
46.
47
issued orders, prescribing age limit for admission to three years and five
years law degree courses, he further submitted that when the Director of
Legal Services, by his letter dated 24.04.2015, has recommended the age
restriction which is in force, at present, for admission to Government law
colleges, to continue in the interest of legal education, no reasons have
been assigned by the Government, as to why the Government have
decided to revert to the pre 2008-2009 position and issued orders
directing, Dr.Ambedkar Law University to prescribe no age limit for three
years law degree course and upper age limit of 21 years (except for SC/ST
candidates) for five years integrated law degree courses in Government
Law Colleges and in Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, as followed
upto the academic year 2008-2009.
47.
48
age limit has been fixed by the Bar Council of India, for the law degree
courses. The said restriction was followed by the University. Clause 28
of the Legal Education Rules was withdrawn by the Bar Council of India.
The University sought for clarifications from the Government of
Tamilnadu, vide Letter No.C.F.No.959/Regr/Law Admission 2015, dated
27.04.2015.
Government
of
Tamil
Nadu
issued
an
order
in
The
49
04.06.2015.
48.
Learned
Advocate
General
further
submitted
that
50
of the Bar Council of India, to remove the upper age limit, for admission
to three years law degree course, cannot be said to be arbitrary or
violative of the statutory provisions of either the Advocates Act, 1961 or
the Bar Council of India Rules. He invited the attention of this Court to
paragraph 7 of the above judgment.
51.
filed by the Bar Council of India against the judgment in Ankit Bhardwaj
vs. Bar Council of India, (W.P.No.12528 of 2011, dated 20.10.2011)
was dismissed on 05.01.2015. Referring to the judgment in K.Sakthi Rani
vs. The Secretary to Bar Council of Tamilnadu, reported in 2010 (2)
L.W. 746, he submitted that the challenge in the abovesaid case was in
relation to the enrollment of the candidates above 45 years and
therefore, the said judgment is inapposite to this case.
52.
judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rajan Sharma Vs.
The Bar Council of India and another [C.W.P.No.20966 of 2010, dated
20.10.2011]
and
Ankit
Bhardwaj
vs.
Bar
Council
of
India,
51
down clause 28 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, the Hon'ble Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court considered the validity of
the Rules, with reference to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961
and taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian
Council of Legal Aid and Advice and others v. Bar Council of India and
another reported in (1995) 1 SCC 732, held that the Bar Council of India
is not armed with any power to incorporate a provision in the rules, like
clause 28, concerning the age on admission to law degree course.
53.
judgment in Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice and others v. Bar
Council of India and another reported in (1995) 1 SCC 732 considered
by the Hon'ble Division Bench.
52
profession. Since the Act is silent on this point the Bar Council
of India was required to resort to its rule-making power. The
rules made by the Bar Council of India under Section 49(1) of
the Act are in seven parts, each part having its own chapters.
Part VI is entitled "Rules Governing Advocates" and the said part
has three chapters. Chapter I sets out the restrictions on senior
advocates and is relatable to Sections 16(3) and 49(1)(g) of the
Act, Chapter II lays down the standards of professional conduct
and etiquette and is relatable to Section 49(1)(c) read with the
proviso thereto and Chapter III deals with "Conditions for right
to practice" and is stated to be made in exercise of power under
clause (ah) of sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act. That
clause reads as under:
"(ah) the conditions subject to which an advocate shall have
the right to practice and the circumstances under which a
person shall be deemed to practice as an advocate in a court;"
On the plain language of the said clause it seems clear to us
that under the said provision the Bar Council of India can lay
down the 'conditions' subject to which "an advocate" shall have
the right to practice. These conditions which the Bar Council of
India can lay down are applicable to an advocate, i.e., a person
who has already been enrolled as an advocate by the State Bar
Council concerned. The conditions which can be prescribed
must apply at the post-enrolment stage since they are expected
to relate to the right to practice. They can, therefore, not
operate at the pre- enrolment stage. By the impugned rule, the
53
54.
Punjab and Haryana High Court, learned Advocate General also referred
to paragraphs 9, 10 and 12, which are extracted hereunder:9. The impugned Clause 28 dealing with the age on
admission occurring in Schedule-III appended to the Rules have
been framed under Section 7(1)(h) and (i) and 24(1)(c)(iii) and
(iiia), 49(1)(af), (ag), and (d) of the Advocates Act. Section 7 of
the Advocates Act deals with the function of the Bar Council of
India and Clause 7(1)(h) and (i) only deals with such functions of
54
55
55.
Mr.Kshitij Sharma and another vs. The Bar Council of India and
another (Writ(PIL) Petition No.2497/2015, dated 04.03.2015) of the
Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur
Bench and submitted that when the University issued a notification,
56
prescribing age limit for admission to law degree courses, following the
decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, stated supra and taking
note of the fact that a large number of writ petitions have been filed in
the High Courts, across the country with reference to the age factor, the
Hon'ble Jaipur Bench was of the view that application of the students for
Common Law Admission Test 2015, should not be rejected on the grounds
of prescription of upper age.
of
2010,
dated
20.10.2011],
quashed
the
notification.
56.
57
Ltd., vs. Union of India, reported in 2004 (6) SCC 254 and the decisions
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ankit Bhardwaj vs. Bar Council
of India, (W.P.No.12528 of 2011, dated 20.10.2011), Mr.Kshitij
Sharma and another vs. The Bar Council of India and another
(Writ(PIL)
Petition
No.2497/2015,
dated
04.03.2015),
learned
Advocate General further submitted that the other High Courts have
exercised their jurisdiction, and laid down the law regarding the validity
of clause 28 of the Legal Education Rules.
57.
58
Court as well.
58.
59.
59
For the
60.
The Joint
Secretary, Bar Council of India, New Delhi, has denied the allegation of
60
61.
of India Rules) were framed for the entire country under Section 7(1)(h)
and (i), (m), 24(1)(c)(iii) and 3(a), 49(1), (af), (ag) and (d) of the
Advocates Act, 1961.
62.
61
63.
62
64.
63
Legal Aid & Advice and others vs. Bar Council of India and another,
reported in 1995 (1) SCC 732, the said rule was struck down as ultra
vires of the Act and opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He
also submitted that subsequently in furtherance of the powers conferred
under Section 49(1)(ag), Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995 came to
be issued. Again, the said rule was the subject matter of a writ petition
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in V.Sudeer vs. Bar Council of
India and another, reported in 1999 (3) SCC 176, the rule was struck
down.
31 and 32 of the
64
the case filed by the Bar Council of India against Bonnie Foi Law College
and others, a three member committee was constituted.
65.
66.
age limit for admission into three years and five years law degree course.
It reads as follows:''28.Age on admission.--(a) Subject to the condition
stipulated by a University on this behalf and the high degree of
professional commitment required, the maximum age for
seeking admission into a stream of integrated Bachelor of law
degree program, is limited to twenty years in case of general
category of applicants and to twenty two years in case of
applicants from SC, ST and other Backward communities.
(b) Subject to the condition stipulated by a University,
and the general social condition of the applicant seeking legal
education belatedly, the maximum age for seeking admission
65
67.
submitted that clause 28 relating to age for admission into law degree
course, was challenged in various High Courts. Interim orders suspending
the operation of clause 28 for enabling the students to take up admission,
were granted by various High Courts.
68.
Dr.Ambedkar Law University, reported in 2009 (8) MLJ 1677, this Court
upheld the competence of the Bar Council of India to prescribe standards
including age limit.
69.
66
passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Nittan Gupta vs. Bar Council of India 5258/2010, Rajan Sharma vs. Bar
Council of India 20966/2010, Janka Raj vs. Bar Council of India,
12097/2009 and Lt.Col (Retd) Harinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and
Haryana 11947/2009. Challenge to the rule was also made in State of
Andra Pradesh, Assam, Calcutta, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh,
Kerala, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab and Haryana,
Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Orissa, Jammu & Kashmir and
more than 200 writ petitions have been filed and interim orders of stay of
operation of rule 28 was obtained.
students have joined the law courses and completed the same.
They
have also appeared for All India Bar Examination and got the certificate
of practice.
70.
filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court to deliver the judgment
in Ankit Bhardwaj vs. Bar Council of India, (W.P.No.12528 of 2011,
dated 20.10.2011) was also dismissed. Bar Council of India filed SLP
No.14408-14412 of 2013 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to grant
67
any interim order. Transfer petitions were filed in the Supreme Court for
in T.P(C)No.857-866/2009.
71.
submitted that since clause 28 was struck down by the Hon'ble Punjab
and Haryana High Court, the General Council of Bar Council of India
constituted a One Man Committee under the Chairmanship of the CoChairman of Bar Council of India, to examine and submit a report to the
Council.
72.
submitted that when rule itself has been struck down by the Punjab and
68
Haryana High Court and the procedure for making amendment does not
arise. According to him, even before it was discussed by the General
Council, the rule was struck down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
73.
submitted, the rule itself was struck off from the Statute Book.
74.
that the Hon'ble Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh, vide order, dated 20.10.2011 in CWP.No.20966 of 2010 and
connected petitions, declared clause 28 of Schedule III appended to the
Rules of Legal Education, 2008 as ultra vires. He further submitted that
69
it is true that the Bar Council of India adopted clause 28 for admitting
students to law degree course and also defended the same before various
courts. However, by virtue of the interim orders, more than 1,00,000
persons have enrolled and taking note of the prevailing situation across
the country and as the provision was struck down, there was a need for
the General Council of the Bar Council of India to go into the issue and
that the General Council of Bar Council of India comprising of 19 elected
members and two ex-officio members, have deliberated and accepted the
One Man Committee's report and in order to maintain uniformity, the Bar
Council of India has also withdrawn the cases pending in the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
75.
70
77.
fit to extract few provisions from the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar
Council of India Rules.
78.
with the following Statement of Objects and Reasons:The Bill seeks to implement the recommendations of
the All-India Bar Committee made in 1953, after taking into
71
79.
Bar Council of India for the territories to which the Act extends.
Functions of the Bar Council of India as per Section 7(1)(h) of the Act,
is to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such
education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such
education and the State Bar Councils. As per Section 7(m), of the Act,
72
Bar Council of India has to do all other things necessary for discharging
the aforesaid functions.
80.
As
per
Section
10-A(3)
of
the
Act,
the
81.
73
82.
83.
Rules are
divided into parts and each part has different chapters. As per clause
2(h) of Part I, rules means the rules made by the Council . Chapter III in
Part II deals with Constitution, Functions and Procedure of Committees of
the Bar Council of India. As per rule 1 of Chapter III, the the Council may
appoint from amongst its members, one or more committees as it may
74
84.
Education Committee. As per rule 8 Chapter III, Part II, Legal Education
Committee shall have the following powers and duties:(a) to make its recommendations to the Council for
laying down the standards of legal education for the
Universities;
(b) to visit and inspect Universities and report the
results to the Council;
(c) to recommend to the Council the conditions, if any,
subject to which foreign qualifications in law obtained by
persons other than citizens of India may be recognised for
admission as Advocates under the Act;
(d)(i) to recommend to the Council for recognition of
any degree in law of any University in the territory of India
under Section 24(1)(c)(iii) of the Act and
(ii)
to
recommend
the
discontinuance
of
any
85.
Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules deals with the rules
75
86.
87.
76
education.
88.
89.
per rule 43 of Chapter VI, the Legal Education Committee of the Bar
Council of India shall be the dispute resolution body for all disputes
relating to legal education, which shall follow a procedure ensuring
natural justice for such dispute resolution as is determined by it.
77
90.
91.
appearing for the petitioner is that when there is a dispute regarding the
prescription of upper age limit for admission to law degree courses across
the country by virtue of various orders passed by the High Courts, Legal
Education Committee of the Bar Council of India is the only body
empowered to resolve the dispute. Contentions raised by the petitioner is
also to the effect that as per rule 47 of Chapter VI of Part IV, any
amendment proposed by Bar Council of India in the rules shall be carried
through consultation with the Universities and the State Bar Councils by
way of circulation of the proposal to the Universities and the State Bar
Councils for the written submission within the scheduled notified fate and
after consideration of such written submission on merit.
The Legal
78
92.
93.
we deem it fit to consider the report of the 184 Law Commission Report,
on the Legal Education and Professional Training and the proposals for
79
Therefore, in this
should
constitute
its
'Legal
Education
Committee'
80
members out of its Legal Education Committee, for the purposes of the
'Legal Education Committee of the BCI. It has proposed that, the Legal
Education Committee of the BCI should also have one retired Judge of
a High Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice of India.
Accordingly,
Advocates Act, 1961. The Legal Education Committee of the BCI should
consult the Legal Education Committee of the UGC. It will have to fulfil
the requirements of specified consultation process. The procedure for
consultation is provided in the proposed section 10AA of the Advocates
Act, 1961. Further, it has also recommended to elaborate the expression
'standards of legal education' in the Act by amendment of Section 7(1)(h)
of the Advocates Act.
94.
81
Obviously, it will be
82
83
There may be
84
in
India
21st
in
Century,
Problems
and
already
referred
to
Prof.Gurdeep
Singh's
We
article
85
86
matters.
4.8.There is one other aspect here which concerns the
implementation of the recommendations of the Legal Education
Committee of the Bar Council of India by the Bar Council of
India.
suggested that the Bar Council of India should accept and act in
accordance with the decision of the Legal Education Committee
of the Bar Council of India. It is very gratifying to note that in
the letter of the Bar Council of India dated 3.8.2000, the Bar
Council of India has agreed to implement the recommendation
of
its
Legal
Education
Committee
without
raising
any
87
can
be no
objection
to
this
proposal.
95.
88
graduates
of
that
University,
to
the
professional
96.
Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, reported in 2009 (8) MLJ 1677, the
petitioner therein has challenged the column 2(iii)
of the prospectus
issued for the three year B.L degree course 2009-2010 by the respondent
and quash the same, and consequently, prayed for a direction to the
respondent therein to accept the petitioner's application for three year
B.L course admission, relaxing the instructions specified in column 2(iii)
and to condone the excess 8 days.
Advocates' Act, 1961, dealing with the functions of the Bar Council of
India, Section 49(1)(af) of the Bar Council of India, to make rules
89
97.
90
vide order, dated 29.06.2009, the Hon'ble Apex Court noted with concern
the diminishing standards of professional legal education provided at
various Law Colleges across the country.
Looking to the
Solicitor
General
and
President
of
the
Bar
98.
91
99.
should
be
mandatorily
required
to
establish
legal
aid
92
the
huge
number
of
Universities
and
other
93
the
ranks
of
Vice-
office
and
members
being
Vice-
94
It
is
noteworthy
that
consistent
with
the
LCI
95
LCI,
96
97
102. Thus from the above, it could be seen that the Three Member
Committee's report has also reiterated that as per Section 7(1)(h) of the
Advocates Act, effective consultation between the Bar Council of India,
the State Bar Councils and the Universities in India, is required and
increase in the involvement of the members of the Academicia of Legal
Education, has been taken note of, by the Bar Council of India while
accepting the report of the Three Member Committee.
98
99
100
Aparna Basu Mallick, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1334 = 1994 (2) SCC 102, the
Bar Council of India, in its counter affidavit, has further contended that
the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that Section 49(1)(d) of the
Advocates Act, empowers the Bar Council of India, to make rules, which
may prescribe standards of legal education to be observed by Universities
in India and the inspection of Universities for that purpose.
While
justifying the prescription of upper age for admission, reference has also
been made to the decision in Preeti Srivastava (Dr) vs. State of Madhyar
Pradesh, reported in 1999 (7) SCC 120, wherein the Apex Court held that
regulation of admission has direct impact on the maintenance of
standards of education and while considering the standards of education
in any college or institution, the caliber of students who are admitted to
that institution cannot be ignored.
105. In the counter affidavit, before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the
Bar Council of India has also relied on a decision of the Apex Court in
Union of India vs. Indian Council of Agriculture Research, reported in
2000 (1) SCC 750, wherein, it is held that Veterinary Council of India
is competent and empowered to prescribe standards Veterinary
101
Young
102
103
ultra vires
available to it, under the provisions of the Act. The Bar Council of
India has further averred that the Madras High Court in M.Santhosh
Antony Vareed's case was right in holding that Section 49 of the
Advocates Act, 1961, empowers the Bar Council of India for making
rules for discharging its functions under this Act, including the
standards of legal education to be observed by the Universities in India
and the inspection of Universities for that purpose. The Bar Council of
India has also submitted that the rules were framed by the Bar Council
of India, to promote standards of legal education and the entitlement
of those who seek entry into the profession and as such to upgrade the
quality of legal education, in consultation with the Universities in
India, imparting such education and the State Bar Councils.
109. The Bar Council of India has further stated that the Legal
Education Rules were framed in consultation with the Universities, and
the State Bar Councils and that the same were challenged on the
presumption of vacancies which may occur in future. It is the contention
of the Bar Council of India that rules have been framed to strengthen the
104
Council of India that by framing rules of legal education, the Bar Council
of India not is not causing unreasonable restriction, but is only
strengthening the standards of legal education in the country.
110. As per the counter affidavit before the Hon'ble Apex Court,
the then existing members of Legal Education Committee were a former
Hon'ble Judge, Supreme Court of India, the Hon'ble Mr.Justice Madan
Bhimrao Lokuar, Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh, Prof.N.L.Mitra, former
Vice-Chancelor of National Law School, Bangalore and Jodhpur, the
Attorney General of India, The Solicitor General of India and five
members of Bar Council of India. Legal Education Committee has been
expanded by the Bar Council of India to include eminent Senior Advocates
like Shri Ram Jethmalani, Shri Ashok Desai H, Shri K.K.Venugopal, Shri
P.P.Rao, Shri Anil Divan, Shri Gopal Subramanium, Shri A.K.Ganguli, Shri
O.P.Sharma, former Chairman Bar Council of India and Prof.(Dr.)Ranbir
Singh, Vice-Chancellor, National Law University, Delhi and Hon'ble
Mr.Justice Mukul Mudgal, former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana
High Court and other legal luminaries.
105
106
The
107
108
operation of clause 28 by the High Courts and in Ankit Bhardwaj vs. Bar
Council of India, (W.P.No.12528 of 2011, dated 20.10.2011), the
Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that clause 28 of Schedule-III
appended to rules as beyond the legislative competence of the Bar
Council of India and that there were other decisions from the Punjab and
Haryana High Court and other Courts also.
109
present writ petition, has further submitted that One Man Committee has
taken note of the other judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
and observed that the other professional courses such as B.Ed., C.A.,
C.S., and M.B.A., there is no upper age limit, for admission in
professional courses. The Bar Council of India has further stated that the
member has taken note of the fact that even in medical courses, some of
the states do not have upper age limit. Restriction of age for admission
violates the fundamental right, guaranteed in Article 19 of the
Constitution of India.
110
Council of India to frame rules, for carrying out all functions. At this
juncture, it is to be noticed that the One Man Committee itself has
categorically recorded that as per Section 7 of the Advocates Act,
promotion of legal education and laying down standards of such
education has to be done in consultation with the Universities in India and
the State Bar Councils. At the risk of repetition, Section 7(1)(h) of the
Advocates Act, is reproduced hereunder:to promote legal education and to lay down standards
of such education in consultation with the Universities in
India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils.
111
judgment in Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice and others vs. Bar
Council of India and another, reported in 1995 (1) SCC 732, wherein, at
paragraph 8, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
112
of
application
for
But
the
113
124. Though before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Bar Council of
India argued that the upper age limit for enrolment has been fixed to
save the legal profession from decay and deterioration, and further
contended that the powers conferred under Section 15 of the Advocates
114
Act, enables the Council to frame rules, the Hon'ble Apex Court, taking
note of Section 24 of the said Act, observed that there is a provision for
prescribing minimum age for enrollment as 21 years and that there was
no provision in the Act, which can prescribe the maximum age entering
into the profession. The Apex Court opined that as the Act is silent on the
point, the Bar Council of India has resorted to its rule making power
under Section 49(1). Section 49(i)(c) read with the proviso thereto and
Chapter III deals with 'conditions for right to practice' which the Bar
Council of India can lay down, i.e., a person who has already been
enrolled as an advocate by the concerned State Bar Council and that the
conditions which can be prescribed must apply at the post-enrolment
stage. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the newly added rule
cannot receive the shelter of clauses (ah) of Section 49(1) of the Act.
125. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the above
conditions applicable to an advocate touching his right to practice can be
laid down, and if laid down, he must exercise his right subject to those
conditions. The Apex Court held that the language of the said clause
does not permit laying down of cautions of entry, into the profession.
115
116
rule does not give any indication that it can debar persons belonging to a
certain age group from being enrolled as advocates.
The Hon'ble
117
judgment in Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice and others vs. Bar
Council of India and another, reported in 1995 (1) SCC 732, which
relates to prescription of upper age limit for entry into the profession, at
paragraphs 9 and 10, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held as
follows:The impugned clause 28 dealing with the age on
admission occurring in Schedule-III appended to the rules have
been framed under Section 7(1)(h) and (I) and 24(1)(c)(iii) of
and (iiia), 49(1)(af), (ag), and (d) of the Advocates Act. Section
7 of the Advocates Act deals with the function of the Bar
Council of India and Clause 7(1)(h) and (i) only deals with such
functions of the Bar Council of India, which are aimed at
promoting to legal education to to lay down standards of such
118
119
Committee has further recorded as follows:Some of the persons even after completed the age of
more than 40 to 45 years completed the degree and enrolled in
number of State Bar Council and many of the, appeared in the
All India Bar Exam and obtained Certificate of Practice. In such
a circumstances, lot of ambiguity in the above rule and striking
down clause 28 of Schedule-III appended to the Rules of Legal
Education (for brevity, 'the Rules'), framed by the Bar Council of
India being ultra vires, unconstitutional and arbitrary and apart,
the Clause-28 is total violation of not only fundamental rights
120
121
122
123
124
24(1)(c)(iii) and (iii a), 49(1)(ag) and (ah) of the Act, clearly
provide the required power and authority for the Bar Council of
India to prescribe the minimum qualification, standard,
inclusive of minimum marks, attendance, curriculum and other
incidental qualifications to a Law University and the Law
College recognised by it. Accordingly, the Bar Council of India
in exercise of its power under Sections 7(1)(h)&(i), 24(1)(c)(iii)
and (iii a), 49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961,
has introduced the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, which has
come into effect from 14.09.2008 onwards.
125
49(1) of the Advocates Act. Similarly, the said rules are not
contrary to Section 24 (1) of the Advocates Act, 1961. A
conjoint reading of Sections 7(h) and 49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) of
the Act, clearly gives such a power to the Bar Council of India.
139. At paragraph 45, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has
further held as follows:45. In fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specified in the
said judgment that Section 49(1)(af) of the Act deals with the
minimum qualification required for admission to a course in law
in a recognised University and the said provision does not have
anything to do with the rules impugned therein. The Hon'ble
Apex Court was also considering the scope of Sections 7(1)(h),
24(3)(d) and 49(1)(ag) and (ah) and not Section 49(1)(af) of the
Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the above
said two judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court do not
help the case of the petitioners. Accordingly, we answer Points
(i), (ii) and (iii) in favour of the respondents that the Rules of
Legal Education, 2008, are in accordance with the power
conferred under Sections 7(1)(h)&(i), 24(1)(c)(iii) and (iii a),
49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and
explanation to Rules 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, is
in accordance with Section 49 of the Act and not contrary to
Section 24(1) of the Advocates Act and hence, they are
constitutional and valid in law.
126
The
127
examinations.
128
course
should
be
regular
one
or
may
be
by
statutory
The
129
130
131
132
133
134
Council of India and another, reported in 1995 (1) SCC 732 was not
applicable to the challenge to the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, in
K.Sakthi Rani's case, the Hon'ble Division of this Court, at paragraphs 40,
42, 43, 45, has held as follows:40. We are also of the view that explanation to Rule 5 of
the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, in particular, and the Rules
in general, are not beyond the rule making power conferred on
the Bar Council of India under Sections 7(1)(h) and (i), 24 and
49(1) of the Advocates Act. Similarly, the said rules are not
contrary to Section 24 (1) of the Advocates Act, 1961. A
conjoint reading of Sections 7(h) and 49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) of
the Act, clearly gives such a power to the Bar Council of India.
42. The issue involved in Indian Council of Legal Aid and
Advice and others v. Bar Council of India and another reported
in (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 732, is as to whether the
condition imposed by the Bar Council of India preventing the
enrollment of a candidate who completes 45 years and above, is
valid or not. Therefore, the Honourable Apex Court was dealing
with the case wherein the restriction was sought to be imposed
which is after the completion of the law course. The
Honourable
Apex
Court,
after
considering
Sections
24,
49(1)(ag), (ah) and 7 of the Advocates Act, 1961, has held that
such a power exercised by the Bar Council of India, is
unconstitutional and contrary to Section 24(1) of the Act,
135
136
142. Thus the Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court in K.Sakthi
Rani's case, has categorically held that Rules of Legal Education, 2008,
have been framed in accordance with the powers conferred under
Sections 7(1)(h)&(i), 24(1)(c)(iii) and (iii a), 49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) of the
Advocates Act, 1961 and hence, they are constitutionally valid.
The
Hon'ble Division Bench further held that the explanation to Rule 5 of the
Rules of Legal Education, 2008, is neither contrary to Section 24(1) of the
Act, nor beyond the rule making power conferred on the Bar Council of
India under section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
137
138
through
the
Universities
imparting
legal
139
of
punishment
and
the
Wednesbury
Principles
of
been
applied
vigorously
to
legislative
(and
140
Reasonable
restrictions
in
individual
situations.,
question
for
imposing
restriction
or
whether
the
141
That
cannot be disputed by the Bar Council of India and rules have been
framed to that effect under Part IV of the rules of Legal Education 2008.
Prescription of age is one of the eligibility criteria to be taken into
consideration for admission to a college or University. Section 24 of the
Advocates Act lays down the qualification of a person to be appointed as
advocate on a State Roll besides the qualifications prescribed therein. As
per Section, no person shall be admitted as advocate on the State Roll
unless he has completed the age of 21 years.
142
contention of the learned counsel for the Bar Council of India that the
administrative decision taken by the Council has to be considered with
reference to the application of the principles of proportionality, cannot
be countenanced.
150. Clause 28 of the Legal Education Rules prescribing age, has
been framed in exercise of the powers under Sections 7(1)(h) and (i),
143
24(1)(c)(iii) and (iiia), 49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961,
which deals with promotion of legal education and laying down the
standards for such education. When the Bar Council of India rules deals
with duration of the course, eligibility for admission, prohibition to
register for two regular course of study, minimum marks in qualifying
examination for admission, standard of courses, process and manner of
running integrated course, semester system, minimum infrastructure, end
semester test and prohibition against lateral entry and exit etc.,
it
cannot be said that it has no competence to fix upper age, for admission
as done in the case of prescribing a minimum age for enrollment as an
advocate, under Section 24 of the Advocates Act.
144
Advocates Act. Therefore, with due respect to the decision of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Ankit Bhardwaj vs. Bar Council of India,
(W.P.No.12528 of 2011, dated 20.10.2011), we are of the view that
the Bar Council of India while framing standards of legal education in
Chapter II, fixing eligibility for admission, prohibition to register for two
regular course of study, minimum marks in qualifying examination for
admission, standard of courses, process and manner of running integrated
course, semester system, minimum infrastructure, end semester test and
prohibition against lateral entry and exit etc, is empowered to prescribe
the upper age limit for admission.
Shri.R.Thyagarajan,
learned
senior
counsel
145
that the rules framed by the Bar Council of India are well within
its powers. The learned senior counsel further submitted that
the Bar Council of India has answered the reference made by
the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu in accordance with the Section
26(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Therefore based upon the said
reference the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu has made its decision.
Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned orders
passed are well within the powers of the Bar Council of India
and Bar Council of Tamil Nadu respectively. It is further
submitted that from the object of the Rules it governs not only
the degree in law but also the education prior to it. Hence a law
degree without a basic degree is not a valid degree. The learned
counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
BALDEV RAJ SHARMA v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND OTHERS [AIR
1989 SC 1541] and submitted that a person seeking enrollment
has to comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules and
therefore the petitioners do not have any other choice except
to abide by it. The learned senior counsel has relied upon the
judgment in BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BOARD OF MANG.
DAYANAND COLL. OF LAW AND OTHERS [JT 2006 (10) SC 603]
and submitted that the Bar Council of India has got control over
the legal education. It is further submitted that the Bar Council
of India has got the power to deny the enrollment particularly
with reference to the standard of legal profession and the
entitlement of those who seek entry to it. It is also submitted
that the judgment of the Apex Court is binding on the Bar
146
152. When the Bar Council of India has contended that rules of
Legal Education 2008 has been framed in accordance with the provision
Section 7(1)(f)(h) & (g) read with Section 24(1) and Section 49(af)(ag) and
thus sustained the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, as rightly pointed out
by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Rajan Sharma Vs. The Bar
Council of India and another (order dated 20.10.2011, made in
C.W.P.No.20966 of 2010), the Bar Council has not represented the case
before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It has not filed any counter
affidavit. When the competence in framing the legal education rules was
sustained in 2010 itself by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
K.Sakthi Rani vs. The Secretary to Bar Council of Tamilnadu, reported
in 2010 (2) L.W. 746, it is now known, why the Bar Council of India, has
not filed any objection.
147
consultation with the Universities and the State Bar Councils, adopted the
same in the year 2008 and decided to implement the recommendations of
the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India on 03.08.2000,
and having accepted the three member committee report 06.10.2009 and
approved the same by the Bar Council of India on 24.10.2009, decided to
implement the recommendations including the enforcement of the legal
education rules, it is not open to the Bar Council of India to appoint a
One Man Committee to revisit clause 28, age on admission. Even taking it
for granted that the Bar Council of India has the competence to nominate
a One Man Committee to go into the issue, which took note of the
decision in M.Santhosh Antony Vareed's case, upheld on 11.03.2013 and
observed that SLP has been dismissed in limine, the One Man Committee,
ought to have considered that the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras
High Court has already upheld the entire Rules of Legal Education, 2008
and clause 28 in Schedule III Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules, is a
148
part of the rules. Decision in Ankit Bhardwaj vs. Bar Council of India,
(W.P.No.12528 of 2011), has been rendered on 20.10.2011. Despite the
same, the Bar Council of India has filed a detailed counter affidavit in
September' 2012, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and sustained the
judgment in Santhosh Antony Vareed's case.
154. Thus on the day, when the One Man Committee considered
the divergent views rendered in Santhosh Antony Vareed's, K.Sakthi
Rani's and Ankit Bhardwaj's cases, there was a dispute regarding the
prescription of upper age for admission to law courses. That being the
case, the Bar Council of India should have considered rule 43 of Part IV of
the Legal Education Rules, which states that Legal Education Committee
of the Bar Council of India shall be the dispute resolution body for all
disputes relating to legal education, which shall follow a procedure
ensuring natural justice for such dispute resolution as is determined by it.
If resolution is passed subsequent to the enactment of the Advocates Act,
it will not be protected under rule 45 of the said rules. In the case on
hand, the Bar Council of India has not adopted the procedure envisaged
in rule 43 Chapter VI Part IV of the Legal Education Rules, 2008.
149
155. Earlier, before this Court, the Bar Council of India has argued
to sustain the Rules of Legal Education, 2008.
Supreme Court, the Bar Council of India has filed a detailed counter
affidavit stating that rules have been framed in consultation with the
Universities and State Bar Councils. Clause 28 forms part of the rule. Let
us consider, what amendment means.
(ii)
150
SC 845 = 1965 (1) MLJ (SC) 57, the Supreme Court held as follows:
The dictionary meaning of the word, amend is to
correct a fault or reform. .........It is well known that the
amendment of a law may in proper case include the deletion
of anyone or more of the provisions of the law and
substitution in their place of new provisions.
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
151
and though amendment may not directly amount to repeal, it may have
such a consequential effect.
(vi)
152
153
Government
representatives,
high
profile
Jurist,
and
following decisions:-
154
(ii) In U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S.
Karamchari Sangh, [(2004) 4 SCC 268], the Supreme Court, at
Paragraph 12, held as follows:
12. Although these observations were made in the
context of the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the
proceedings relating to an industrial dispute and may not be
read as a limitation on the Courts powers under Article 226,
nevertheless it would need a very strong case indeed for the
High Court to deviate from the principle that where a specific
remedy is given by the statute, the person who insists upon
such remedy can avail of the process as provided in that
statute and in no other manner.
155
156
159. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd., vs. Union of India, reported
in 2004 (6) SCC 254, at paragraphs 21 and 22 held as follows:''A parliamentary legislation when receives the assent of
the President of India and published in an Official Gazette,
unless specifically excluded, will apply to the entire territory of
India. If passing of a legislation gives rise to a cause of action, a
writ petition questioning the constitutionality thereof can be
filed in any High Court of the country. It is not so done because
a cause of action will arise only when the provisions of the Act
or some of them which were implemented shall give rise to civil
or evil consequences to the petitioner. A writ court, it is well
settled would not determine a constitutional question in
vacuum.
The court must have the requisite territorial jurisdiction.
An
order
passed
on
writ
petition
questioning
the
157
160. In Rajan Sharma Vs. The Bar Council of India and another
[C.W.P.No.20966 of 2010, dated 20.10.2011], the Punjab and Haryana
High Court, at paragraphs 9, 10 and 12, held as follows:
9. The impugned Clause 28 dealing with the age on
admission occurring in Schedule-III appended to the Rules
have been framed under Section 7(1)(h) and (i) and
24(1)(c)(iii) and (iiia), 49(1)(af), (ag), and (d) of the
Advocates Act. Section 7 of the Advocates Act deals with the
function of the Bar Council of India and Clause 7(1)(h) and (i)
only deals with such functions of the Bar Council of India,
which are aimed at promoting to legal education and to lay
down standards of such education in consultation with the
Universities in India imparting such education and to
recognize the Universities whose degree in law shall be a
qualification for enrolment as an Advocate. Therefore, this
clause would not arm the Bar Council of India to incorporate
the provisions in the Rules like clause 28 concerning the age
on admission to L.L.B. Course. Likewise, Section 24(i)(c)
deals with person who may be admitted as an Advocate on a
158
159
12. As
The
Industrial
Disputes
Act,
1947
is
160
(Emphasis Supplied)
162. In Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR
161
Kerala
High
Court's
pronouncement
on
the
162
163. In Kshitij Sharma and another Vs. The Bar Council of India
and another [Writ (Pil) Petition No.2497 of 2015, dated 04.03.2015],
the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court, at paragraphs 9, 10 and 13, it
has been held as follows:
9. It is submitted that the argument, that students
ordinarily qualify for appearing in the CLAT at the age of 17
years, is not entirely correct, inasmuch as, in our country, a
large number of students living in rural and semi urban areas,
with various disadvantages suffered by them, as well as
hardships to any one or more students due to any particular
reason or causes, such as illness, may, by the time, he/she
pass 10+2 Examination, crosses the age of 20 years. A large
number of students living in rural areas, are not able to
complete 10+2 Examination before the age of 20 years. It
cannot be said that for admission in the 16 top Law Colleges,
they do not have the best talent. They cannot be deprived of
an opportunity to be admitted to the best Law College/s in
the country. A preference is also given by the Supreme Court
of India and various High Courts to the students of these law
schools, to work as Law Clerks and Research Assistants.
10. It is stated by the petitioners that a large number
163
of writ petitions are being filed in the High Courts across the
country, in which almost all the High Courts have taken a
prima facie view that the age of 20 years, as on 01.07.2015,
for general category candidates, is arbitrarily low and is not
rational and reasonable. Interim orders have been passed in
many writ petitions in the High Courts. Reference has been
made to the interim orders in writ petitions, filed in
Allahabad High Court between 22.04.2014 to 25.07.2014.
Learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court has also
passed an interim order on 09.02.2015 in S.B.Civil Writ
Petition No.1978/2015, allowing the petitioner to appear in
the Common
Law Admission
164
that
instead
of
requiring
''effective
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
The concrete
abstract
ratio
decidendi.
ascertained
on
consideration of the judgment in relation to the subjectmatter of the decision, which alone has the force of law
and which, when it is clear what it was, is binding. It is
only the principle laid down in the judgment that is binding
law under Article 141 of the Constitution.
A deliberate
172
173
to
have
that
character
owing
to
altered
174
175
Though as
176
Rules of Legal Education, 2008, have been framed. Exercise of power has
to be done in the manner provided therefor. As per the scheme of
Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules, Bar Council of
India is entrusted with the function to promote legal education and to lay
down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in
India and the State Bar Councils. Thus, the State Bar Councils are also
entrusted with a duty and task of promoting legal education. Eligibility
for admission to law courses is also one of the factors, in the Rules of
Legal Education, 2008.
177
such education and the State Bar Councils. Taking note of the decision in
Rajan Sharma Vs. The Bar Council of India and another (order dated
20.10.2011, made in C.W.P.No.20966 of 2010 etc) the Bar Council of
India has withdrawn Clause 28 and thereafter, withdrawn the SLP.
178
finality.
179
172. Files produced by the Bar Council of India shows that Item
No.36/2009 (LE) is to consider clarifications sought for by various
Universities/law colleges, regarding the implementation of the new
revised rules of the Bar Council of India in Part IV relating to Standards
of Legal Education and Recognition of Degrees in Law for the purpose of
enrollment as advocates.
1.Letter dated 18.2.2009 received from the Principal, J.
C.C. Law College, Kolkata regarding accreditation system.
2.Letter dated 5/5/2009 received from the Head, Deptt of
Laws, Gurunanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab regarding
Schedule II of the new rules of the Legal Education.
Consideration of the above matter has been deferred for the
next meeting of the Legal Education Committee.
180
Committee was of the view that a Transfer Petition under Article 139A may be moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, requesting to
transfer the Writ Petitions pending in different High Courts on the issue of
age limit imposed by the Bar Council of India to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court to decide the matter.
181
Education
meeting. In all, 24
of
the
Legal
Education
Committee
relating
to
182
183
184
185
183. Files produced by the Bar Council of India further shows that
186
and
bounds,
the
world
is
undergoing
total
and
spread
of
information
technology
have
187
188
189
Bar Council of India and transfer petition filed in the matter of Bar
Council of India vs. .Haridas.
Resolution No.170/2013
After consideration, Council constitute a Committee
consisting of Mr.Apurba Kumar Sharma, Mr.S.Prabakaran and
Mr.Nilesh Kumar. The Committee is requested to examine the
matter and submit its report within two weeks.
190
Bar Council of
191
192. Thus on 09.08.2013, the Bar Council of India has taken two
decisions regarding Legal Education Rules and role of the Committee. In
Resolution No.173/2013, the Bar Council of India has taken a decision to
place the report of the inspection reports before the Legal Education
Committee, on the ground that the power to grant or refuse approval of
law colleges lies with the Legal Education Committee and the resolution
of the Bar Council of India shall be placed before the Legal Education
Committee for ratification.
193. At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to state the Bar
Council of India, has categorically resolved to accept the revised rules on
Standards of Legal Education as recommended by the Legal Education
Committee, by the Bar Council of India, which prepared the said rules
with the help of a sub committee. At many pages in the files, there is
indication of forming Sub-Committees. There is no reason in the counter
affidavit of Bar Council of India, as to how, the One Man Committee's
report has been considered, without reference or discussion with the
192
194. It could be seen from the above, all along the Legal
Education Committee has deliberated various issues, concerning legal
education, including the upper age limit and taken decisions, and the Bar
Council of India in its resolution No.244/13 was even prepared to accept
the guidelines, if any, fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. At the risk of
repetition, Resolution No.244/13, is extracted:
Resolution No.171/2013
The Hon'ble Member Mr.S.Prabakaran has submitted
his report regarding clause 28, Schedule III of Legal
Education Rules, 2008. Clause 28 is ultra vires the provisions
of Sections 7(1)(h) and (I), 24(c)(iii) and (iiia) or Section
49(1)(af)(ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act.
As such the Council resolves to request the Hon'ble
Apex Court to consider the rule prescribed by Bar Council of
India in clause 28, Schedule II of Legal Education Rules,
2008, and lay down the fresh guideline on the issue. The
matter is sub-judice. The learned Advocate on record should
be instructed to make a request to the Hon'ble Apex Court to
lay down proper guidelines in this regard.
Bar Council of
193
courses.
196. As per the Law Commission Reports, taken note of, by the
Three Member Committee, appointed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Bonnie FOI Law College's case (cited supra), there should be a
consultative process, as extracted supra. The Bar Council of India has also
resolved to accept the Three Member Committee's report, as stated
194
supra.
197. From the perusal of the files, submitted by the Bar Council of
India, there was an appointment of a Three Member Committee for the
abovesaid purpose. Here again, we are not able to deduce, as to whether,
the Bar Council of India has passed any specific resolution, nominating
Mr.S.Prabhakaran, to go into the issue.
199. Perusal of the files indicate that without any remarks from
the Legal Education Committee and deliberation with such Committee,
which framed the rules, the Bar Council of India in Resolution
No.171/2013 has decided to consider and discuss the report submitted by
the Member Shri.S.Prabakaran regarding clause 28 of the Legal Education
195
200. Though the Bar Council of India in its counter affidavit to this
writ petition, has stated that One Man Committee was constituted for the
purpose of considering the issue relating to fixing the age limit for
admission to law degree courses in the law colleges and the Universities,
it is not known under what circumstances Shri.S.Prabakaran, was
appointed as One Man Committee and submitted his report. There is
nothing to indicate that the Bar Council of India has constituted a One
Man Committee, by passing any resolution to call for any report from
Mr.S.Prabakaran regarding clause 28 of Legal Education Rules, 2008
(maximum age of admission in Law courses).
196
202. Thus when the Bar Council of India has considered the office
note regarding the amendment of a rule, stated supra, a committee,
consisting of Three Member Committee has been constituted to examine
the matter and submit a report. On the contra, as stated supra, we are
not able to find out, as to whether, there is any resolution passed by the
Bar Council of India, for nominating Mr.S.Prabakaran to discuss and
consider the issue regarding clause 28. No specific date is mentioned even
in the counter affidavit filed by the Bar Council of India.
203. Thus going through the minutes of the meetings of the Bar
Council of India held on various dates and recorded in the Files, we are
unable to find out as to when the General Council of the Bar Council of
India has decided to nominate a One Man Committee. Though the Bar
Council of India in its resolutions has referred to the constitution of sub
197
204. From the files of the Bar Council of India, the only inference
that could be made by us is that Mr.S.Prabakaran, Member, has submitted
a report, regarding clause 28 of Legal Education Rules 2008. There is no
recommendation of the Legal Education Committee to the General
Council of the Bar Council of India, to consider the issue of maximum
age. As pointed out, when there was an inspection report involving the
State Bar Councils, the Bar Council of India has specifically resolved to
place such report before the Legal Education Committee, as the power to
grant or refuse the approval of law colleges lies with the Legal Education
198
of
the
Rules
of
Legal
Education,
2008,
the
199
After
2008,
in
law
prescribing
courses
age
has
restriction
been
to
withdrawn,
take
the
200
207. Thus, from the above, there is an indication that the decision
taken by the Legal Education Committee has been considered by the
General Council of the Bar Council of India and it has been accepted.
With regard to Resolution No.171/2008 under Item No.244/2013, report
dated 28.07.2013 submitted by Mr.S.Prabakaran, Bar Council of India has
been accepted. On 29.09.2013, General Council of the Bar Council of
India has convened a meeting with 12 members including Chairman. Item
No.331/2013 is to consider the modified report submitted by the Hon'ble
Member Mr.S.Prabhakaran along with the note in regard to Clause 28,
Schedule-III, Rule-11 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. Resolution
No.231/2013 passed by the Bar Council of India is as follows:Council has considered the Seceretary's Note as well as
modified
report
submitted
by
the
Hon'ble
Member,
The
modified report be
201
Item No.387/13 is to
202
the Bar Council of India. Item No.387/2013 is to consider the letter dated
15.12.2013 received from Mr.S.Prabakaran, Co-Chairman, Bar Council of
India requesting for the resolution and Gazettee publication regarding age
restriction (Rule-28 notification).
Resolution No.64/2014, the Council has considered and
discussed the matter thoroughly. After thorough consideration,
the Council thinks it proper to bring this matter to the notice of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) 26958-26962/2013 in which the
Council has challenged the order passed by High Court of
Punjab & Haryana. As per the report of the office, the SLP is
still pending before the Hon'bel Apex Court. The matters listed
in today's agenda (i.e Item No.75/2014) by which the Bar
Council of Tamil Nadu has rejected two transfer applications on
the ground of clause 28 of Schedule-III relate to the same
resolution and the decision of the Division Bench of Punjab &
Haryana High Court. After thorough consideration, it is resolved
that the Lawyer appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of India
should be requested to get the hearing of the matter expedited
and to get it decided within a period of one month. It is also
resolved that in the meantime, the State Bar Council of Tamil
Nadu may be reminded of the resolution of the Bar Council of
India.''
210. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
203
the Bar Council of India has accepted the report of the Legal Education
Committee on the working of the Law Commission regarding admission of
the students, in its letter, dated 03.08.2000, cannot be disputed.
211. It could be deduced from the above, that the Three Member
Committee reports were directed to be placed both before the Bar
Council of India and the Legal Education Committee and accordingly, the
reports have been accepted. Thus, it could be seen in the matter of
promotion and laying down the standards of legal education, the role of
Legal Education Committee, has been recognised and emphasised by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and without consultation of the Legal Education
Committee, no changes should have been made in the Bar Council of
India Rules.
212. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
there is a discrimination between five year law course and three year law
course, in the matter of prescribing upper age limit, for admission to B.L.
Five year Degree Course and B.L. Three Year Degree Course, is not
answered in the counter affidavit.
204
and
norms
prescribed
by
the
Government
in
214. Entry 66 List 1 under the XIIth Schedule provides for Coordination and Determination of Standards in Higher Education. Entry 25
of List III deals with broader subject, Education. Needless to state that
as per Section 254 of the Constitution of India, If any provision of a law
made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law
made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any
205
206
207
Law
(LS)
Department,
dated
03.06.2015
and
208
219. Hence,
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
skm/NB2
209
S.MANIKUMAR, J.
AND
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
skm/NB2
To
210
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Union Law and Justice,
Government of India,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Law and Justice,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai.
3.The National Legal Knowledge Council,
New Delhi.
4. The Secretary,
Bar Council of India,
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
Near Bal Bhavan,
New Delhi.
5. The Chairman,
Legal Education Committee,
Bar Council of India,
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
Near Bal Bhavan,
New Delhi.
6. The Chairman,
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry,
High Court Campus,
Chennai - 600 104.
7. The Secretary,
Union Grants Commission,
Bagadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi - 110 002.
8. The Registrar,
Dr.Ambedkar Law University,
211
Greames Road,
Chennai.
9. Thiru S.Prabakaran,
A Hon'ble Member of One Man Committee,
constituted to reconsider the age restriction
of Clause 28 of Legal Education Rules, 2008,
Bar Council of India,
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
Near Bal Bhavan, New Delhi.
212
S.MANIKUMAR, J. ,
AND
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
skm/NB2
W.P.(MD)No.9533 of 2015
& M.P.(MD) Nos.1 to 3 of 2015
07.08.2015