However, there are two Supreme Court decisions that initially rule that the clause is invalid. In 2011, the Supreme Court of Punjab and Haryana ruled that the rule was arbitrary and irrational, and that the establishment of such a rule was “outside the legislative jurisdiction” of the BCI. Asked that such an age restriction violates the “right to education,” Chaturvedi said: “Article 21-A of the Constitution provides for the fundamental right to free and compulsory education only for the age group from 6 to 14 years.” According to a circular published two days ago by the regulator of the legal professions, the idea of an age limit, originally conceived in 2008, is being “revived” thanks to recent developments in the courts. The circular was addressed to the Vice-Chancellor and the directors of law schools and colleges in the country. When this author asked Pavani, “Do you agree that such rules violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution?” she replied, “Absolutely yes! Finally, these rules create an embargo on people over a certain age who seek legal training. As a result, these people are ultimately prevented and deprived of practicing law in our country. These rules violate a number of precedents set by the Supreme Court, which have established well-formulated principles for fundamental rights law. However, if a person tries to gain knowledge to eradicate ignorance, he will be retained. It does not make sense. During the transition period, the National Adult Education Programme (PNEA) was designed in India. On October 2, 1978, the Indian government announced the PNEA. Although this program was also half-baked, because it did not talk about higher education and the age limit of 15 to 35 years was imposed. Therefore, literacy must carry the holistic approach.
Literacy can be described not only as the process of learning reading and writing skills, but also to free a person from the darkness of ignorance. There is no end to education. Throughout life, from the moment you are born to the moment you die, there is a process of learning. Senior Counsel Mahalakshmi Pavani, President of the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association, revealed: “Article 28 of the 2008 Rules of Legal Education sets an age limit for admission to the 5-year integrated law course and the 3-year Bachelor of Laws program. This provision stipulates that no person over the age of twenty (and twenty-two years in the case of SC, ST and OBC) may apply for admission to 5 years of integrated law studies. Similarly, this provision also stipulates that no person over the age of thirty (and thirty-five in the case of SC, ST and OBC) may register for the 3-year-old LL.B. Program. Lawyers Update visited the office of the Bar Council of India, where President Mannan Kumar and Secretary Srimanto Sen were not available for comment.
Assistant Secretary Nalini Raj Chaturvedi said in his brief statement that the BCI should set standards for quality education. Given that BCI considered it necessary to raise the age of admission of the integrated law degree by 5 years and the bachelor of laws by 3 years or 30 years to 20 years, see communication BCI/0/1519 (L.E.Cir) of 17 September 2016, which was suspended by the Supreme Court in (civil) application no. 1023 of 2016. Appointed March 30, 2016. However, the issue has not yet been decided. “Section 28 of the Legal Education Rules 2008 does not provide a reasonable classification based on understandable differences by creating an upper age limit. Moreover, this rule is the opposite of the objectives of the rules of the Bar Council of India and the Lawyers Act, 1961, in promoting legal education in our country. Rajkumari Tyagi says in her plea that she dealt with legal complications without having to resort to a lawyer at all times when it came to the will or identification of the files. The applicant alleged that the new BCI rules violated Articles 14 (Equality), 19(1)(g) (right to engage in a profession or to engage in a profession, trade or business) and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution. In this case, the Commission concluded that BCI was a public company established under section 4 of the Lawyers Act 1961. Section 7 of the Act defines the functions of the BCI, including the promotion of legal education in India and the establishment of standards for such education in consultation with Indian universities and state bar councils. In addition, section 49 of the Lawyers Act 1961 authorizes the BCI to enact rules for the performance of its duties under that Act, such as: the requirement of qualifications and disqualifications for membership in a bar council, the minimum qualifications required for admission to a legal degree at a recognized university, the establishment of legal education standards for universities in India, etc.
It should therefore be noted that the BCI appears to be performing tasks of a regulatory nature with respect to the legal profession. It is only a matter of time before the section is again the subject of attention in the Supreme Court. One can only hope to obtain much-needed clarification on this issue if that is the case. The lead lawyer went on to say, “There does not seem to be any logic or justification for setting an age limit for pursuing legal studies in our country. On the one hand, the Bar Council of India is responsible for promoting legal education in our country, and on the other hand, it is precisely this Bar Council of India (BCI) that imposes such ridiculous restrictions without the application of reason or reason.