Madras High Court
Albun Gurusu M vs The Secretary on 6 April, 2022
W.P. Nos.9548 to 9557 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P. Nos.9548 to 9557 of 2014
and M.P.Nos.1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 2 of 2014
Albun Gurusu M .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9548 of 2014
Balakrishnan.M. .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9549 of 2014
Jagannathan.K. .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9550 of 2014
Mani.J. .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9551 of 2014
V.C.Karunakaran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9552 of 2014
Srinivas D .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9553 of 2014
N.Rangarajan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9554 of 2014
Iyyanar C .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9555 of 2014
Kannikkainathan J .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9556 of 2014
Manohar Doss .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9557 of 2014
Versus
The Secretary
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu
High Court Campus
Chennai – 600 104
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis .. Respondent in all W.Ps.
W.P. Nos.9548 to 9557 of 2014
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated
17.03.2014 of the respondent herein in ROC.Nos.1060, 1110, 1099, 944, 1170,
986, 941, 949, 956 & 991 of 2014 and quash the same.
In all W.Ps.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Radhakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
Heard both sides and perused the documents enclosed in the typed set of
papers.
2.This Court by order dated 03.02.2014, in WP(MD)No.10315 of 2013,
directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to take necessary action
for removal of advocates, who have completed the law course in violation of
clause 28 Schedule III Rule 11 of Rules of Legal Education, 2008 of Bar Council
of India. Placing reliance on the same, the respondent / Bar Council of Tamil
Nadu and Puducherry issued show cause notices dated 17.03.2014, calling upon
the petitioners to explain as to why their names should not be removed from the
rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, for the alleged violation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Nos.9548 to 9557 of 2014
referring to their age. Challenging the said notices, the petitioners have come up
with these writ petitions to quash the same.
3.The issue involved herein is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice and others v. Bar Council of
India and another [1995 (1) SCC 732] has observed that fixing a bar at the age
of 45 years is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, discriminatory,
unreasonable and arbitrary. Paragraph 13 of the said judgment is usefully
extracted below:
"13. The next question is the rule reasonable or arbitrary and
unreasonable? The rationale for the rule, as stated earlier, is to maintain the
dignity and purity of the profession by keeping out those who retire from
various Government, quasi-Government and other institutions since they on
being enrolled as advocates use their past contacts to canvass for cases and
also pollute the minds of young fresh entrants to the profession. Thus the object
of the rule is clearly to shut the doors of the profession for those who seek entry
into the profession after completing the age of 45 years. In the first place, there
is no reliable statistical or other material placed on record in support of the
inference that ex-government or quasi-government servants or the like indulge
in undesirable activity of the type mentioned after entering the profession.
Secondly, the rule does not debar only such persons from entry into the
profession but those who have completed 45 years of age on the date of seeking
enrolment. Thirdly, those who were enrolled as advocates while they were
young and had later taken up some job in any Government or quasi-
Government or similar institutions and had kept the sanad in abeyance are not
debarred from receiving their sanads even after they have completed 45 years of
age. There may be a large number of persons who initially entered the
profession but later took up jobs or entered any other gainful occupation who
revert to practise at a later date even after they have crossed the age of 45 years
and under the impugned rule they are not debarred from practising. Therefore,
in the first place there is no dependable material in support of the rationale on
which the rule is founded and secondly the rule is discriminatory as it debars
one group of persons who have crossed the age of 45 years from enrolment
while allowing another group to revive and continue practise even after 45
years. The rule, in our view, therefore, is clearly discriminatory. Thirdly, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Nos.9548 to 9557 of 2014
unreasonable and arbitrary as the choice of the age of 45 years is made keeping
only a certain group in mind ignoring the vast majority of other persons who
were in the service of Government or quasi-Government or similar institutions
at any point of time. Thus, in our view the impugned rule violates the principle
of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution."
4.Following the aforesaid decision, a Division Bench of this Court in
M.Radhakrishnan v. the Secretary, Bar Council of India and another [2006
(5) CTC 705] has also held that “the object of the rule is only to curtail group of
persons from entering into profession and to satisfy other group of person who
also stand on the same footing. The State Bar Council cannot widen / expand its
rule-making power so extensively to discriminate or classify between two
similarly placed persons based on utter arbitrariness”.
5.Therefore, from the above judgments, it is clear that the fixation of upper
age limit in enrolling in the Bar is construed to be unreasonable.
6.However, Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the Bar
Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry submitted that the subject matter in issue
is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rishabh Duggal and another v.
the Bar Council of India and another in WP(Civil)No.1023 of 2016 and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed the Notification issued by the Bar Council of
India in BCI:D:1519 (LE:Cir.-6) dated 17.09.2016, on 03.03.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Nos.9548 to 9557 of 2014
7.In view of the above, all these writ petitions are disposed of subject to
result of the Writ Petition (Civil) No.1023 of 2016 pending before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
[R.M.D,J.] [J.S.N.P., J.]
06.04.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
mrr
To
The Secretary
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry
High Court Buildings
Chennai – 600 104
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. Nos.9548 to 9557 of 2014
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
mrr
W.P.Nos.9548 to 9557 of 2014
06.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
