Madras High Court
S.Maheshwaran vs The Chairman on 25 February, 2022
WP NO.13006 OF 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
WP NO.13006 OF 2014
AND MP NO.1 OF 2014
S.Maheshwaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry
Bar Council Building
High Court Campus
Chennai - 600 104.
2.The Secretary
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry
Bar Council Building
High Court Campus
Chennai - 600 104. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the
records relevant to the order in R.O.C.No.1168 of 2014 dated 17.03.2014
passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same is improper unreasonable
against the law and natural justice and thereby direct the respondents to allow
the petitioner to continue his legal practice as an advocate.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.13006 OF 2014
For Petitioner : Ms.P.A.Chitramani
For Respondents- : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The writ petitioner is challenging the show cause notice issued
by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry questioning his enrollment
on the basis of his age at the time of enrollment.
2.This matter is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in its judgment in INDIAN COUNCIL OF LEGAL AID AND
ADVICE AND OTHERS VS. 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 reads as
under:
"13. The next question is, is the rule reasonable or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.13006 OF 2014
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 thereby bring the profession into
disrepute 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.13006 OF 2014
institutions and had kept the sanad in abeyance are not
debarred from reviving 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
crossing the age of 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.13006 OF 2014
violates the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of
the Constitution."
3.Later, a Division Bench of this Court in
M.RADHAKRISHNAN VS. THE SECRETARY, THE 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.
Parliament fixed no upper age limit for pursuing law course in Advocates Act.
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. 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.
4.However, Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for
the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry would submit that the matter
is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RISHABH DUGGAL AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.13006 OF 2014
ANOTHER VS. THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER in
WRIT PETITION (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.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ
petition is 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 petition is closed.
25.02.2022
kpr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.13006 OF 2014
To
1.The Chairman
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry
Bar Council Building
High Court Campus
Chennai - 600 104.
2.The Secretary
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry
Bar Council Building
High Court Campus
Chennai - 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.13006 OF 2014
M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
Kpr
WP NO.13006 OF 2014
AND MP NO.1 OF 2014
25.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
