INDIAN COUNCIL OF LEGAL AID AND ADVICE, ETC. ETC. versus BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 304 · Decided: 17-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
INDIAN COUNCIL OF LEQAL AID AND ADVICE, ETC. ETC. 
v. 
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR. 
JANUARY 17, 1995 
B 
(AM. AHMADI, CJ, S. MOHAN AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.) 
Advocate Act, 1961-Sections 24 & 49(1)-Bar Council of India 
Rules-Rule 9-Validity of-Enrolment as an advocate-Entry of persons who 
complete age of 45 years barred-Whether Rule 9 is valid-Held, Ncr-Rule 
C strnck down as ultra vires the Act-Rule is discriminatory. 
D 
Constitution of India-Art. 14--Bar Council of India Rules-Rule 
9-Validity of-Entry of persons who completed the age of 45 years as 
advocates barred-Whether Rule 9 is reasonable-Held, Ncr-Rule violates 
principle of equality. 
Writ petitions were filed challenging the legality and validity of Rule 
9 added by the Bar Council of India by resolution No. 64/93 dated 22nd 
August, 1993 in Chapter 111 of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules. 
The newly added rule barred the entry of persons who had completed the 
E age of 45 years on the date of application for enrolment as an advocate 
from being enrolled as such by the concerned State Bar Council. 
Petitioners challenged the rule as inconsistent with Articles 14, 19(1)(g) 
and 21 of the Constitution and section 24 of the Advocates Act:, 1961. 
Th~ Bar Council of India contended that it had acted bonafide within 
F' the framework of the Act and the Constitution. According to it the right 
to practise as an advocate not being a fundamental right but only a 
privilege conferred by the Act could always be withdrawn and in any case 
reasonable restrictions could be imposed. It was alleged that the restric· 
tion imposed by the newly added rule was to serve a public purpose and 
could never be termed as unreasonable, violative of Article 14 of the 
G Constitution. Since the upper age limit had been fixed to save the legal 
profession from decay and deterior.ation it could not be said to be incon· 
sistent with Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution. According to the 
respondent Bar Council of India a person who had already spent the best 
years of his life in pursuing some other profession or occupation could not 
H be said to have the correct aptitude of a service oriented professional and 
304 
.. 
j1 
COUNCIL OF LEGAL AID AND ADVICE v. BAR COUNCIL 
305 
could not be expected to maintain the high stan~ard of professional A 
conduct. It was submitted that persons who retire from various govern· . 
ment, semi· government and other institutions when admitted to the legal 
profession use their earlier contacts to convass for cases and such be· 
haviour leaves a lingering effect on the profession. Such persons being not 
inspired by lofty ideals of the profession, their only motive being· money-
making for which they are prepared to stoop to any level. 
B 
Allowing the petitions, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Section 24 of the Advocates Act, prescribes the minimum 
age for enrolment as twenty one years complete. There is no provision in C 
the Act which can be said to prescribe the maximum age for entry into the 
profession. There is no provision empowering the Bar Council of India to 
Craine such a rule. [314-H, 316-B] 
1.2. By rule 9 of the Bar Council of India Rules, the entry of those 
who have completed 45 years at the date of application for enrolment is D 
sought to be barred. The rule operates at the pre-enrolment stage and 
cannot, therefore, receive the shelter of clause (ah) of section 49(1) of the 
Act. Under the said clause conditions applicable to an advocate touching 
his right to practise can be laid down. But it does not permit laying down 
of conditions for entry into the profession. Therefore, clause (ah) of E 
Section 49(1) of the Act does not empower the Bar Council of India to 
frame a rule barring persons who have completed 45 years of age from 
enrolment as an advocate. The impugned rule is, therefore, ultra vires the 
said provision. [315-F-G] 
1.3. It is within the exclusive domain of the State Bar Council to F 
admit persons as advocates on their rolls or to remove their names from 
the rolls. There is no provision dealing with admission and enrolment of 
advocates which restricts the entry of those who ha.ve completed 45 years 
as advocates. Nor has any State Bar Council made aoy such rule. [317-G] 
1.4. There is no basis to accept the interpretation that all those above G 
the age group of 45 years constitute a class within the scope of clause (ag) 
of Section 49(1) of the Act to permit the Bar Council of India to debar 
the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.