BCI Withdraws Upper Age Limit for Admission to 3-Year and 5-Year Law Courses
The Bar Council of India (BCI) has withdrawn the upper age restrictions for admission to law courses, it informed the Supreme Court in Rishabh Duggal & Anr. v. Bar Council of India & Anr. The decision applies to admissions to both three-year and five-year law programmes.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was informed about the development on November 6. The BCI told the Court that its General Council had passed a resolution a day earlier removing the age restrictions.
Add LawBhoomi as your preferred source on Google.
“The Bar Council of India has withdrawn the age restriction. A resolution was passed yesterday,” the BCI’s counsel informed the Court.
After recording the submission, the Supreme Court closed the petition that had challenged the validity of the upper age restrictions imposed on candidates seeking admission to law courses.
The dispute had its roots in the BCI’s Rules of Legal Education, 2008. Clause 28 of Schedule III prescribed age-related conditions for admission to law programmes. The rules originally placed an upper age limit on candidates seeking admission to both integrated and three-year law courses.
The BCI had withdrawn Clause 28 in 2013 after a one-member committee concluded that the restriction violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before law. However, the age restrictions were later restored through a circular issued by the BCI in September 2016.
Explore the latest legal opportunities for law students and lawyers.
This restoration resulted in further legal challenges. One of the issues raised before the Supreme Court was whether the BCI’s statutory authority to regulate legal education and prescribe qualifications extended to fixing a maximum age for entering a law course.
During an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court had asked the BCI to reconsider the upper age restriction applicable to admission to the five-year integrated LL.B. programme. The Council subsequently examined the issue before taking its latest decision.
Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the petitioner, requested the Court to formally record the BCI’s position, noting that the Council had previously withdrawn the restriction before restoring it.
“May I request that the last three lines of the (BCI) circular be recorded? Earlier also, the BCI had withdrawn the restriction and subsequently restored it. This time, they have used the expression finally. I would be grateful if that could be recorded,” he said.
The BCI’s counsel responded, “The resolution was passed only yesterday. I would have filed it otherwise.”
The Supreme Court ultimately took the BCI’s statement on record and closed the proceedings. The withdrawal removes the upper-age barrier that had remained the subject of prolonged litigation concerning access to legal education.
Join LawBhoomi’s 100K+ Community
