Madras High Court
Justin.J vs The Secretary on 13 April, 2022
W.P.Nos.9841 to 9884 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P.Nos.9841 to 9884 of 2014
and
M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2014
Justin.J ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9841 of 2014
Babu.E ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9842 of 2014
Martin Manivannan M.G. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9843 of 2014
Parameswaran ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9844 of 2014
Sathiamoorthy. T ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9845 of 2014
Revathi T.A.K. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9846 of 2014
R.Chandrasekaran ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9847 of 2014
Suresh Kumar N.V. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9848 of 2014
Ramasubramanian K ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9849 of 2014
Ravicandran V ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9850 of 2014
Ranganathan V ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9851 of 2014
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.9841 to 9884 of 2014
Venkatesan V ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9852 of 2014
Arjunan N ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9853 of 2014
Balasubramani M ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9854 of 2014
Umarani S ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9855 of 2014
Ayyappan V ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9856 of 2014
Kumaravel P ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9857 of 2014
Arjunan A ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9858 of 2014
Palani Velu C.N. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9859 of 2014
Kartheswaran K ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9860 of 2014
Suresh Y.K.R. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9861 of 2014
Lakshmipathy B ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9862 of 2014
Vijayakumar D ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9863 of 2014
Thayanidhi R ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9864 of 2014
Sekar M.G. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9865 of 2014
Anbazhagan G ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9866 of 2014
Velu M ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9867 of 2014
MuraliKrishnan V. R ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9868 of 2014
Senthil Kumar T. J ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9869 of 2014
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.9841 to 9884 of 2014
P.Sridar ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9870 of 2014
D.Cheladurai ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9871 of 2014
Babu N ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9872 of 2014
Mohammed Zaid Sait ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9873 of 2014
Jayanthi ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9874 of 2014
Rameshbabu E ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9875 of 2014
Vijayakumar M ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9876 of 2014
Ramesh A ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9877 of 2014
Ramadas R ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9878 of 2014
Kannan A ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9879 of 2014
Gurumurthy K ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9880 of 2014
Vasantha Lakshmi L ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9881 of 2014
Saravanakanni R ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9882 of 2014
Gopi D ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9883 of 2014
Dhayalan V ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9884 of 2014
Versus
The Secretary,
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu,
High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104. ... Respondent in all W.Ps.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.9841 to 9884 of 2014
Common Prayer:
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to
the order dated 17.03.2014 of the respondent herein in R.O.C.Nos.967,
959,1025, 936, 1100, 1159, 950, 969, 1070, 997, 1044, 1156, 1043, 1164,
1032, 998, 1175, 1145, 976, 1160, 1158, 981, 1153, 918, 1073, 1154, 980,
935, 1107, 1066, 973, 971, 942, 1056, 1031, 966, 943, 1127, 1002, 1022,
1050, 1069, 1106 and 1040 of 2014 and quash the same.
For Petitioner in all W.Ps : Mr.M.Radhakrishnan
For Respondent in all W.Ps. : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.9841 to 9884 of 2014
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.9841 to 9884 of 2014
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
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”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.9841 to 9884 of 2014
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.
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.]
13.04.2022
msr/gba
Index : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.9841 to 9884 of 2014
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
gba/msr
To
The Secretary,
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu,
High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104.
W.P.Nos.9841 to 9884 of 2014
and
M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2014
13.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
