Law aspirants challenge age limit in Bombay high court

At a time when law has emerged as a popular choice as a professional course, there appears to be a consensus among lawyers, teachers and students that the age-limit serves no purpose. They said that the rule is unfair to many who decide to study and practice law at a later stage of life.

With at least two petitions challenging the age limit imposed on law aspirants filed in Bombay High Court (HC) last week, the issue has become a bone of contention between law aspirants and the Bar Council of India (BCI), the apex regulatory body for legal education.

The seemingly conflicting judgements on the age limit imposed on law aspirants have given rise to further confusion on the issue. (HT Illustration for Representation)

The limit was first introduced by BCI in 2008, as part of Rules on Standards of Legal Education (Rules). Clause 28 of the Rules states that the maximum age for seeking admission in an integrated Bachelor of law degree programme - which is usually a five year programme offered after class 12 - is 20 years (22 years for reserved category) and the maximum age for admission in three year LLB programme - offered after graduation - is 30 years (35 years for reserved category students).

The rule was an attempt to ensure that only students who are "serious" and "focused" should be able to practice law. The age criterion seems to act as a counter to the perception that most over-aged students pursue law on the side and are often just looking for an additional qualification. "Law was looked at as the last choice [by those pursuing higher education]. We wanted the students to be as serious and focused towards legal education as they would be towards other streams," said Manan Mishra, president, BCI.

Read: State relaxes age limit for law aspirants, Bar Council doesn’t

Ever since it was introduced, the rule has been challenged in various courts across the country. In 2010, around 26 petitions challenging the rule were clubbed together and transferred to the Supreme Court at the request of BCI.

At a time when law has emerged as a popular choice as a professional course, there appears to be a consensus among lawyers, teachers and students that the age-limit serves no purpose. They said that the rule is unfair to many who decide to study and practice law at a later stage of life.

"Why should the BCI impose any restriction on acquiring legal education?” said Ashok Yende, incharge director, Mumbai University's Law Academy.

In 2011, the age limit clause was quashed by Punjab and Haryana High Court. Subsequently in 2013, the BCI issued a notification announcing that the rule is no more valid. However, in its 2015 judgement, Madras High Court decided that the notification was invalid. The judgement was upheld by Supreme Court as well.

Read: Law students oppose need for nationality certificate

The seemingly conflicting judgements have given rise to further confusion on the issue. Law aspirants in Maharashtra were struck, when the state's Common Entrance Test (CET) cell issued a notification intimating them about the age-limit rule. There was no mention of the rule in an earlier brochure published by the cell.

Due to persistent pressure from aspirants, the state requested the BCI to do away with the age requirement, at least for the current academic year. While the BCI "allowed" the state to admit over-aged students, in a September 20 letter to law colleges, the apex body suggested the Madras High Court judgement has "restored" the age-limit clause and the colleges are required to follow it.

The ambiguity on the issue resulted in some colleges admitting over-aged aspirants in the second round of admissions, while others chose to stick to BCI guidelines.

New Law College in Matunga, is one such college which admitted over-aged aspirants. "According to my experience, those who enrol for LLB later are more serious than many of their younger classmates. Besides, most of the young graduates join corporate firms. It's the older ones who practise law in the court," said Niranjan Rajadhyaksha, principal of the college.

Yasmin Tavaria, a city-based advocate and a visiting faculty at Government Law College in Churchgate, who filed a public interest litigation challenging the rule, on Monday, said that the Madras HC judgement verdict doesn't concern the age-limit clasue, rather it cancelled the 2013 notification declaring the age-limit invalid. "The age limit was already struck down by Punjab and Haryana HC. There was no need for the notification," she said, adding that she, herself, had studied law after 30.