Age limits for law courses: Why the Madras HC’s order may contradict earlier decisions

Recently, the Madras High Court quashed a Bar Council of India notification which purported to do away with the age limit for the three-year law course. However, this order may just be contradictory to earlier rulings passed by the High Courts of Bombay, and Punjab & Haryana..To understand how, here is a little background..In 2008, the BCI introduced a new rule fixing the age limit for the law course. Rule 28 in the Schedule III of the Rules on Standards of Legal Education framed under the Advocates Act, 1961 fixed the age limit at 20 years for the integrated 5-year course (25 for SC/ST) and at 30 years for the 3-year LLB course (35 for SC/ST)..Consequently, a number of writ petitions challenging this rule were filed in various high courts across the country. In 2011, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the rule was arbitrary and irrational and that the making of such rule was “beyond the legislative competence” of the BCI..In 2013, the BCI appointed a one-man committee to re-consider the clause. The committee eventually observed that the rule was violative of Article 14, and ought to be deleted. Subsequently, the BCI passed a notification dated September 28, 2013, withdrawing the rule..But the matter did not rest there..This matter has been exhumed by B Ashok, an advocate of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. In his writ petition, he has prayed that the BCI notification amending Rule 28 be quashed as it is in contravention of the amendment procedure under the Advocates Act. When the matter came before a two-judge bench of Justices S Manikumar and VM Velumani last week, the writ was allowed. As a result, the age limit rule technically still stands..At this juncture, it is interesting to note that the Bombay High Court had earlier declared Rule 28 as non-existent. A writ petition was filed by advocate Yasmin Tavaria, challenging the constitutionality of the Rule. She submitted that once the Rule has been struck down, there was no occasion for the Bar Council to withdraw the Gazette Publication containing the impugned Rule..A Bench of Justices AS Oka and AK Menon concurred with this view and held,.“Suffice it to say that the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has attained finality and hence, the impugned Regulation/Rule 28 does not exist on the Rule Book…The Bar Council of India is bound to consider the finding of the High Court that the Rule is arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” (Read full judgment below).What one can garner from this is that the BCI did not have to amend the Rule in the first place, as it was already struck down by the Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment. Which brings us to the question of whether the procedure by which the Rule was amended can be challenged at all.