Madras High Court
R. Raja vs The Secretary on 22 June, 2022
W.P.No.9887 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P.No.9887 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
R. Raja ... Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary,
Bar Council of Tamilnadu and
Puducherry,
Bar Council Building,
High Court Campus,
Chennai 600 104.
... Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the
proceedings in R.O.C.No.1149 of 2014 dated 17.3.2014 on the file of the
respondent herein and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : M/s. Elezabeth
For Respondent : Mr.C.K.Chandrakumar
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9887 of 2014
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
Heard both sides 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
respondent / Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry issued show cause
notice, calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why his name should not
be removed from the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and
Puducherry, for the alleged violation referring to his age. Challenging the
said notice, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition to quash the
same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9887 of 2014
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9887 of 2014
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”.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9887 of 2014
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, 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.
(R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q.,J.)
22.06.2022
msr
Index : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9887 of 2014
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.
msr
To
The Secretary,
Bar Council of Tamilnadu and
Puducherry,
Bar Council Building,
High Court Campus,
Chennai 600 104.
W.P.No.9887 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
22.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
