Bar Council of India is a corporate body set up under Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

It is the apex
body to determine the standards governing professional conduct and legal education in the country for
admission as an advocate, in consultation with state bar council and their recommendation is binding on
all universities imparting legal education in India. They are considered to be well versed with law and
due to having wide experience are elected as the committee members of bar. But these very upholders
of law are in gross infringement of the very fundamental right enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Clause 28 in Schedule III of Rule 11 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 discusses about the standards
for legal education and recognition of degrees in law for admission as advocates. It specifies the
maximum age for admission integrated five year law degree program to be twenty years in case of
general category and twenty- two in case of applicants from SC, ST, and other backward communities.
The maximum age limit for admission to three year bachelor degree course in law is thirty years for
general category and thirty five for applicants belonging to SC, ST, and OBC.

The said rule is discriminatory in nature and violates Article 21 of the constitution as it is conquering the
opportunity to provide a better quality of life to the aspirants who desire to join legal profession and
have the means and capability to do so. It runs contrary to the spirit of Article 19(1)(g) by imposing
unjustified conditions of age limit and posing a barrier in practice of profession. It deprives deserving
and meritorious people from pursuing higher education at a later point of time in life which they earlier
couldn’t do due to compelling reasons beyond their control like financial limitations and others. As a
matter of fact, it is the function of Bar Council under Section 7(1)(h) to promote legal education but on
the contrary such provision curbs the benefit which could be accrued to people advancing their
occupational goal and also assisting the law and government. It extinguishes such basic human and
fundamental right which, per se, is unconstitutional. This was also held in Yasmin E. Tavaria vs. Union of
India that the rule is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and void ab intio. The constitutional rights that are
guaranteed to people cannot be taken away at the whims and fancies of The Bar Council of India. It does
not qualify any rational criteria for such restrictive classification. Section 49 (1) (ah) lays the ‘condition’
subject to which ‘an advocate’ shall have right to practice. It was observed in Rajan Sharma vs The Bar
Council of India that the conditions in this clause apply to post-enrollment stage, that is, to advocates, a
person who has already been enrolled as an advocate with the state bar council. Therefore rule which
applied to pre- enrollment stage cannot receive shelter under this section and does not empower the
Bar Council of India to lay down restrictive condition on entry into profession. The rule, therefore should
be considered to be ultra-vires of the said provision.

Similarly, Section 24 (i) (c) discusses about a person who can be admitted as an advocate on a state roll
and has nothing to do with admitting age. Thus under this section as well, the power cannot be said to
be conferred on the Bar Council of India for prescribing the maximum age limit for the purpose of
admission to law courses.

If the legal education is not corrected with fitting remedial measures, the justice delivery system would
suffer irreparably. There is an immediate need for improving the standards for legal education which
requires new entrants to legal profession equipped with adequate professional skill and expertise. As a
matter of fact, age doesn’t restrict a person’s knowledge and the experience only adds to the skill. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preeti Srinvastava vs. State of Madhya Pradesh has held that regulating
admission will have a direct impact on the maintenance of standards of education. Also, while
considering educational standards in any institution, the caliber of students entering into that institution
cannot be ignored. Age does not specify the caliber of a person. There are people who have scored high
marks in the entrance examinations but were barred due to age restrictions. When bright students are
admitted into law colleges, talented people would come out of these colleges and play a very crucial
role protecting rule democracy, administration of justice and rule of law.

A defensive view has also been taken in the case M. Santhosh Antony vs The registrar stating that
academic courses require age limit for getting admission as young minds can be molded easily as
compared to matured minds. Moreover fixing the age limit will bring uniformity among the students. It
should be understood here that the basic essence of removal of age restriction would be to provide
opportunity to people to pursue the career of their choice freely. People from economically weaker
sections may not have linear education and therefore ended up being older than other students, thus
being deprived of the oppourtunity. In the case Rishabh Duggal vs Bar Council of India and Anr. the
counsel for petitioner cited the example of a 70 year old Chinese farmer who pursued his legal
education to sue a company which had wrongfully acquired his land.

Legal profession is considered to be a noble profession. Thus to achieve the same, the said provision of
age restriction should be done away with to maintain an efficient bar council serving cause of justice
which again is a noble one. Doing so will be in larger interest and public welfare so that people who wish
to pursue legal study at a later stage in life, for whatever irresistible and legitimate reason, may not be
barred from pursuing legal profession.