Sub-committee of VCs, retired judge reviewing age-limit rule: BCI to Bombay HC

In what might offer a modicum of clarity on the age limit rule, the Bar Council of India has filed a counter-affidavit in the challenge to Clause 28 in the Bombay High Court..The document reveals that the controversial Clause 28, which calls for the age limit, is under review by a sub-committee comprising a retired high court judge and former and current Vice-Chancellors of law universities..Among the members of the sub-committee appointed by the BCI’s Legal Education Committee are former Chief Justice of the Patna High Court L Narasimha Reddy, Prof Madhava Menon, former NLU Jodhpur and NLSIU Bangalore VC Prof NL Mitra, Dean and Principal of New Law College, Pune, Prof Mukund Sarda, NLU Delhi VC Dr. Ranbir Singh, NLSIU VC Dr. Venkata Rao, and Prof BN Pandey from Banaras Hindu University’s Faculty of Law..The sub-committee also has three members nominated by BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra..The counter affidavit was produced before a bench of Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice GS Kulkarni of the Bombay High Court in advocate Yasmin Tavaria’s challenge to the newly “revived” age-limit rule. The receipt of the affidavit was noted on the last date of hearing, January 6..It also reveals the circumstances under which the rule came back into existence, after the BCI itself recommended its deletion in 2013..As we reported earlier, in 2008, the BCI introduced a new rule fixing the age-limit for admission to law courses. Clause 28 in 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. The BCI filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court pleading that all the litigation be transferred and heard by the apex court. In one of those challenges, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2011 held that the rule was unconstitutional..In response, the BCI appointed a one-man committee of co-Chairman S Prabhakaran to reconsider 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..However, owing to protests among the lawyers’ community in Madurai, Prabhakaran had a change of heart, and suggested that the aforementioned notification be withdrawn, and that Clause 28 be reinstated. But the BCI was not on the same page; in a general body resolution passed in May 2014, it was held that the rule would stand deleted. Consequently, the litigation in various courts were withdrawn..Subsequently, the matter has been exhumed by B Ashok, an advocate of the Madras High Court. In his writ petition, he prayed that the BCI notification amending Clause 28 be quashed as it was in contravention of the amendment procedure under the Advocates Act. A two-judge bench allowed the writ in August 2015..An SLP filed by the BCI before the Supreme Court challenging this order was dismissed in December 2015. As a result, the age limit rule technically still exists..In February 2016, the BCI asked its Legal Education Committee to look into the issue more closely, which is how the sub-committee came to be constituted..Then, on September 17 of last year, a resolution was passed stating how the age-limit rule stood revived. In fact, the BCI reveals that they passed this resolution as they were required to do so by the Madras High Court..And this is where things get even more convoluted..On September 9 of last year, the High Court’s Justice N Kirubakaran passed an order directing the BCI to ensure that the age-limit rule is being scrupulously followed by all law universities..In that order, the judge highlights the BCI’s lack of clarity on the issue. It notes that an unsuccessful challenge to the age-limit in the High Court was appealed before the Supreme Court, with the BCI filing a counter-affidavit in support of the rule. The order states,.“In fact, after notice, before the Honourable Supreme Court, the Bar Council of India supported the Rule by filing appropriate counter affidavit. However, for reasons best known to the Bar Council of India, based on a report submitted by a single member of the Bar Council, the said Rule was withdrawn.”.Judging by the facts on hand, it is nearly impossible to ascertain what the BCI’s intentions are. One hopes that the sub-committee’s findings will bring more clarity to the issue. Pending this report, litigation in the Bombay High Court, as well as in other courts will come to a standstill..Read the BCI’s affidavit:.Read the Madras HC’s September 9 order: