Thursday, April 9, 2009

History of ABC !!!

History of "Age-Bar-Council"
-------------------------------
The Bar Council of various states and now Bar Council of India are repeating their attempts to bring some form of age restictions, either to the enrollments of advocates or enrollment of students to LLB Course.
I have collected below few reports in the order of occurrence and highlighted few aspects of interest. In the first report, the HC judges who quashed the BCT demands to put an age limit of 45 for enrollment say that the parliament has not fixed any upper age limit to pursue law course. Is the current attempt by BCI, to fix an upper age limit for pursuing law course ( 30 for PG LLB and 20 for BA+LLB ), an attempt to counter this argument and achieve something which has been quashed by the courts multiple number of times.
Its quite a shame and pity as to the utter wastage of time and energy caused due to the blatant quashing of freedom and opportunities by such repeated unsubstantiated attempts.

Please find the articles below :
I ] Nov 17, 2006 Chennai
http://www.hindu.com/2006/11/17/stories/2006111716980700.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Madras High Court has struck down a Bar Council of Tamil Nadu (BCT) regulation stipulating the maximum age for enrolment of advocates as 45 years.
Declaring the impugned Rule 8(A) of the Enrolment Rules of BCT as void and unconstitutional, a Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sathasivam and S. Tamilvanan said: "Parliament fixed no upper age limit for pursuing law course after taking note of various relevant features. Hence, the State Bar Council cannot widen/expand its rule-making power so extensively as to discriminate or classify between two similarly placed persons (fresh graduates and belated entrants) based on "utter arbitrariness".
Flagrant violation
"It is the duty of the court to stretch its hands to save the affected party and to remind the limits of the body (BCT) in respect of its rule-making power, particularly when Article 14 is flagrantly violated" the Judges said.

As per the impugned regulation, introduced on June 17, those aged 45 and above are not entitled to be enrolled as advocates. A person enrolling as advocate in any other State Bar Council, where there is no age restriction, shall not be entitled to apply for transfer to Tamil Nadu.
When advocate M. Radhakrishnan challenged the new restriction, the BCT justified it on the ground that it would help upkeep the professional standards and protect the interests of lawyers; that several candidates succeeded in getting a law degree while continuing in government/other service without formal or basic education; that it would help sift those having fake law degrees; that the belated entrants could not be treated on a par with regular entrants; and that they lacked in knowledge and manners.
Rejecting all the contentions, the Bench said the BCT could not furnish any concrete material with statistics to demonstrate that due to the inflow of belated entrants the standard and quality of the profession dwindled to a great extent. If the BCT meant to say that these persons did not have good knowledge and also lacked in manners then "such claim is at best a delusion born of surmises and conjectures."
The court was not underestimating the rule making powers of the BCT, they said, adding, "At the same time we cannot uphold the validity of a provision when it is stained with arbitrariness and inequality and infringes on Article 14 of the Constitution."

II] Nov 22, 2007 Delhi
http://indiaedunews.net/Delhi/Bar_council_cannot_impose_age_limit_for_lawyers_-_court_2617/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Delhi High Court on Thursday said the Delhi Bar Council cannot impose a rule barring law graduates above 45 years from enrolling for practising legal profession in the capital's courts.
While disposing of a petition challenging the bar council's decision, a bench headed by Justice Vikramajit Sen said the lawyers' body had withdrawn the circular and therefore the decision could not be implemented.
All the members are of the unanimous view that the rule made on July 21, 2006 that a member above the age of 45 years will not be enrolled as an advocate is now scrapped with immediate effect. All the members are free to be enrolled to pursue legal profession" said the circular.

III ] Mar 08, 2009
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/law-commission-chairman-upholds-age-bar-for-law-courses/432253/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The BCI has restricted students from open category above 30 years of age and those belonging to SC/ST above 35 years of age to take admission for LLB (old syllabus). Similarly, students from open category above 20 years of age and those from SC/ST above 22 years of age can no longer take admission for BA LLB course.

A R Lakshmanan, chairman of Law Commission of India on Saturday said that the rule is justified and all colleges must abide by it. Speaking to The Indian Express, Lakshmanan said, “This decision taken by the BCI and all colleges -be it government or private law colleges, must strictly follow.” He added that once the rule is made, it is supposed to be followed, not objected. Justifying his statement, Lakshmanan cited the retirement age limit stipulated for every profession.
“By restricting admissions for students above a certain age to law courses, the BCI must be ensuring younger minds into the profession,” he said.

IV] Apr 4/5, 2009

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mumbai/Cop-moves-court-over-age-bar-to-study-law/articleshow/4360077.cms#write

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/PIL-filed-against-age-bar-in-legal-studies/articleshow/4225448.cms

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shabnam Mulani, a 39-year-old police constable and Yasmin Tavaria, a lawyer has filed a PIL against the ruling. Advocate Yasmin Tavaria, 52, was the first to file a PIL against the restrictive rule and the Bombay HC issued a court notice to the BCI chairperson to give his say on April 16. In a new development, Tavaria wrote to Mumbai University and state bar council to find out whether the statutory requirement of consultation was conducted by the BCI.

3 comments:

ramasesha rao said...

The stated objective of the age restriction, as given by the BCI chairman, is improving the quality of legal education. But he conveniently forgot to enlighten us, how it will improve the quality. If lowering the age improves quality of a profession, the retirement age of the judges and maximum age for practice should be lowered drastically to 40. It sounds ridiculous. Isn't it? To me personally, it appears a ploy to curtail entry of experienced people into the profession, and to provide opportunities by reducing the number of entrants. They have tried to beautifully gloss it over in the name of improving quality. But before concluding, I would like to reveal a startling fact that the BCI under the Advocates Act (which is the authorising Act for them) or for that matter, under any other Act, has no power to impose such restrictions. But it is simply acting like the lone super power by acting beyond its brief.

Solomon said...

Hello,

BCI is making a mokery of itself by so called "quality-improvement" process by making 30 years max age limit for 3 year LLB. I have the following reasons;

1. India is laging further behind in solving IPR related cases. The reason is that to understand IPR, the lawyers and the judges have to be competent technically to understand. This is lacking severely, when India is making huge contributions in WIPO and recently India is a signatory to TRIPS. In order to solve this there is a requirement of technical persons with expertise to take up law so that these IPR related cases can be handeled.

2. BCI has a list of foreign universities/Institutes which accord law degrees which are recognised by the BCI. The foreign applicant who holds this degree can write a qualifying exam in India and get him registered in Bar council. These foreign universities/institutes do not have age barrier for doing these degree courses. According to University of Buckingham, London, any matured individual above the age of 25 can take up this course. When BCI recognises those degrees, our own citizens are barred from studying the law of the land. What Irony is this ????

3. If quality is a concern, the BCI should set a year say from 2020 etc from which the age barrier will come into force. This time limit will help the technical knowledge to be gained by the lawers or technical experts to take up law.

Solomon said...

Hello,

BCI is making a mokery of itself by so called "quality-improvement" process by making 30 years max age limit for 3 year LLB. I have the following reasons;

1. India is laging further behind in solving IPR related cases. The reason is that to understand IPR, the lawyers and the judges have to be competent technically to understand. This is lacking severely, when India is making huge contributions in WIPO and recently India is a signatory to TRIPS. In order to solve this there is a requirement of technical persons with expertise to take up law so that these IPR related cases can be handeled.

2. BCI has a list of foreign universities/Institutes which accord law degrees which are recognised by the BCI. The foreign applicant who holds this degree can write a qualifying exam in India and get him registered in Bar council. These foreign universities/institutes do not have age barrier for doing these degree courses. According to University of Buckingham, London, any matured individual above the age of 25 can take up this course. When BCI recognises those degrees, our own citizens are barred from studying the law of the land. What Irony is this ????

3. If quality is a concern, the BCI should set a year say from 2020 etc from which the age barrier will come into force. This time limit will help the technical knowledge to be gained by the lawers or technical experts to take up law.