New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) whether it was willing to withdraw the upper age limit prescribed for admission to five-year integrated law courses.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a petition challenging the BCI’s decision to prescribe an age limit for admission to law degree programmes.

The court asked the BCI to take instructions on whether the restriction could be withdrawn and listed the matter for hearing after two weeks.

The case relates to a September 17, 2016, BCI resolution that revived Clause 28 of Schedule III of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. The provision prescribed maximum age limits for admission to five-year and three-year law courses.

Supreme Court asks BCI to reconsider age restriction

During Friday’s hearing, advocate Radhika Gautam, appearing for the BCI, said she had instructions to leave the issue to the court.

She explained that the rationale for prescribing an upper age limit for the five-year integrated law course was that many such programmes were residential and generally attracted younger students.

Gautam also pointed out that students who wished to pursue law at an older age could opt for the three-year LL.B. programme, which is generally less residential.

However, Justice Bagchi questioned whether the residential nature of a course could by itself justify imposing an upper age limit. He also observed that not all five-year law programmes were residential.

The BCI counsel subsequently indicated that the age restriction could potentially be removed, with the possibility of considering a different approach for residential courses. The BCI has left the final decision to the court.

Petitioner challenges BCI’s legal authority

Senior advocate Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the petitioner, challenged the BCI’s authority to impose a maximum age limit for admission to law courses.

He argued that while the Advocates Act, 1961, allows the BCI to prescribe standards and qualifications for legal education, that power cannot automatically be extended to imposing an upper age restriction.

The petitioner’s counsel also referred to the BCI Expert Committee’s reported view that an upper age limit would violate fundamental rights and principles of natural justice.

The central legal question is therefore not only whether an age limit is desirable, but whether the BCI has statutory authority under the Advocates Act to prescribe such a restriction.

Justice Mohana indicated that the court could examine the extent of the BCI’s powers if the Council declined to withdraw the resolution.

BCI age limit was challenged in 2017

The dispute stems from the BCI’s September 17, 2016 notification reviving Clause 28 of Schedule III of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008.

Under the provision, the maximum age for admission to the five-year integrated law programme was fixed at 20 years for general-category candidates and 22 years for candidates belonging to SC, ST and OBC categories.

For the three-year LL.B. course, the maximum age was prescribed as 30 years. Universities were permitted to provide a further five-year relaxation for candidates belonging to reserved categories.

The Supreme Court stayed the BCI notification on March 3, 2017.

In March 2019, the court directed the BCI to reconsider the age restriction after consulting stakeholders. The issue has remained pending since then.

Earlier court proceedings over age limit

The age restriction has previously been considered by courts.

In 2013, the Calcutta High Court upheld the provision, accepting the BCI’s position that an age limit could facilitate entry into the legal profession at a younger age.

The BCI subsequently restored the restriction through its 2016 notification, leading to the present challenge.

The petition was filed by applicants, including Duggal, who was 21 years old and had been pursuing electrical and electronics studies at the time. The petitioners argued that preventing older candidates from entering law colleges violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

They also contended that the BCI did not possess the authority under the Advocates Act to impose a maximum age for admission.

Issue gains importance amid scrutiny of BCI powers

The latest hearing comes days after the Supreme Court separately questioned the extent of the BCI’s statutory authority over law colleges and legal education.

On September 23, the same bench questioned whether the BCI could control and regulate law colleges and universities, while recognising its statutory role in promoting legal education and laying down standards.

The court’s observations in that proceeding could have relevance to the broader question of how far the BCI can regulate legal education.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court also held that the BCI does not have statutory authority to take disciplinary action against law students before they enrol as advocates. The court said disciplinary control over students rests with their universities or educational institutions, while the BCI can prescribe and enforce standards of legal education within its statutory framework.

Against this backdrop, the court’s consideration of the BCI’s authority to prescribe an upper age limit could have implications for admission rules governing law courses.

Matter listed after two weeks

The Supreme Court has now asked the BCI to obtain instructions on whether the upper age limit can be withdrawn.

If the BCI agrees to withdraw the restriction, the court indicated that the matter could be dealt with accordingly. If it refuses, the bench is likely to examine the separate legal question of whether the BCI possesses the statutory power to impose such an age limit.

The case will come up again after two weeks.

For aspiring law students who are above the prescribed age limits, the existing restriction therefore remains subject to the Supreme Court’s pending proceedings, with no final ruling on the validity of the BCI’s age-limit provision having been delivered in the latest hearing.