Madras High Court
B.Karthikeya Prabhu vs Bar Council Of India on 6 April, 2022
W.P.Nos.11686 to 11688 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 06.04.2022
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.MAHADEVAN
and
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P.Nos.11686 to 11688 of 2014
and M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2014
in W.P.Nos.11686 to 11688 of 2014
B.Karthikeya Prabhu
...Petitioner in W.P.No.11686 of 2014
B.Bhagavathi
...Petitioner in W.P.No.11687 of 2014
S.Rajeswari
...Petitioner in W.P.No.11688 of 2014
Versus
1.Bar Council of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
No.21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
New Delhi – 110 002.
...1st respondent in all W.Ps
2.The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry
Represented by its Secretary,
High Court Buildings,
Chennai – 600 104.
...2nd respondent in all W.Ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11686 to 11688 of 2014
3.Sri Venkateswara University,
(Approved & Affiliated By the Bar Council of India)
Represented by Registrar,
Prakasam Nagar Colony,
Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh – 517 502.
...3rd respondent in W.P.Nos.11686 & 11687 of 2014
4.S.B.R.T.M.Law College,
(Affiliated to Sri Venkateswara University Tirupathi.
Recognised by the Bar Council of India – New Delhi)
Represented by its Principal,
Chemmumiapet,
Kadapa,
Andhra Pradesh.
...4th respondent in W.P.Nos.11686 & 11687 of 2014
5.The Karnataka State Law University,
(Approved & Affiliated by the Bar Council of India)
Represented by the Registrar,
Navanagar,
Hubli – 580 020
Karnataka.
...3rd respondent in W.P.No.11688 of 2014
6.Sri Kengal Hanumathaiya Law College
(Affiliaed to Karnataka Law University, Hubli
Recognised by the Bar Council of India – New Delhi)
Represented by its Principal,
Marikuppam,
K.G.F.Karnataka State
...4th respondent in W.P.No.11688 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11686 to 11688 of 2014
Prayer in W.P.Nos.11686 & 11687 of 2014:
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records relating to the notice issued by the second respondent dated
17.03.2014 in R.O.C.Nos.1165 & 1085 of 2014 and quash the same and
direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to issue permanent certificate without any
endorsement on the certificate.
Prayer in W.P.No.11688 of 2014:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records relating to the notice issued by the second respondent dated
06.03.2014 in R.O.C.No.926 of 2014 and quash the same and direct the 1 st
and 2nd respondents to issue permanent certificate without any endorsement
on the certificate.
For Petitioner
in all W.Ps : Mr.P.Krishnan
For Respondent – 1
in all W.Ps : Mr.S.Raghunathan
For Respondent – 2
in all W.Ps : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar
For Respondents – 3 & 4
in all W.Ps : No Appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11686 to 11688 of 2014
COMMON ORDER
(Common Order of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
Heard all the parties and perused the materials available on record.
2. This Court by order dated 03.02.2014, in W.P(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, 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 referring to their age. Challenging the
said notices, the petitioners have come up with these writ petitions to quash
the same. A consequential direction has also been sought to the respondent
authorities to issue permanent certificate of enrollment without any
endorsement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11686 to 11688 of 2014
3. The issue involved herein is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice and
others v. Bar Council of India and another reported in 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11686 to 11688 of 2014
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
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
the case of M.Radhakrishnan v. the Secretary, Bar Council of India and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11686 to 11688 of 2014
another reported in 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 and Mr.S.R.Raghunathan,
learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India submitted that the
subject matter in issue is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of 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.11686 to 11688 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
mrr
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order (or) Non-Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11686 to 11688 of 2014
To
1.The Secretary,
Bar Council of India,
No.21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
New Delhi – 110 002.
2.The Secretary,
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry
High Court Buildings,
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11686 to 11688 of 2014
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
mrr
W.P.Nos.11686 to 11688 of 2014
06.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
