The judgment established that rules disqualifying persons above a certain age from being enrolled as Advocates must be reasonable, non-discriminatory, and within the scope of the rule-making power conferred by the relevant legal provisions.

Deepak Gupta, J.-By means of this Writ Petition the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of appropriate writ to quash Rule 3 of the Enrolment Rules of 2006 framed by the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh in so far as the said Rules disqualifies persons above the age of 45 years from being enrolled as Advocates.

2. The petitioner at the time of filing the petition was aged 52 years. He was working as Economic Investigator Grade-II in the office of the Director General, Labour Bureau, Shimla. After joining service the petitioner did his graduation, post graduation and in the year 1994 he joined the LL.B Course and successfully completed the same in the year 1997. He also obtained the LL.M degree in September, 2000. According to the petitioner he has submitted his Ph.D Thesis in October, 2006.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by Rule 3 of the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh Advocates Enrolment Rules, 2006, which reads as under:

“3.A person shall be eligible to be admitted as an Advocate on State Roll if he/she fulfills the conditions laid down in the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules and the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh Advocates Enrolment Rules, 2006. Provided that a person who has completed the age of 45 years on the date on which he/she submits his/her application for enrolment as an Advocate to the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh shall not be entitled to be enrolled as an Advocate.”

4. According to the petitioner, the State Bar Council has no authority to put a condition of the maximum age as prescribed under the aforesaid Rule. It is also alleged that the criteria so laid down has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

5. The Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh have contested the aforesaid writ petition. It is not necessary to go into the contentions raised by the parties in detail since most of these contentions have already been decided by the Apex Court in Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice etc. etc. vs. Bar council of India and another, AIR 1995 SC 691, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:

“11. It seems Parliament while enacting the Act created agencies at the State level as well as at the Central level in the form of State Bar Councils and Bar Council of India and invested them with rule making powers on diverse matters touching the legal profession, presumably because it must have realised that matter pertaining to the profession are best left to informed bodies comprising of members of the said profession. However, while doing so it provided for basic substantive matters, e.g., eligibility for entry into the profession (Section 24), disqualification for enrolment (Section 24A), authority entitled to grant admission (Section 25 and 26), the authority which can remove any name from the roll (Section 26A), etc. and placed them within the domain of a State Bar Council. Thus it is the State Bar Council which alone must decide on the question of enrolment of an applicant on its roll. Under Section 24 a person who is a citizen of India and possesses a degree in law becomes qualified to be admitted as an advocate if he has completed twenty-one years of age, subject of course to the other provisions of the Act. No doubt he must fulfil the other conditions specified in the rules made by the State Bar Council (Section 24(1)(e). Every person whose name is entered in the list of advocates has a right to practice in all Courts including the Supreme Court, before any tribunal or other authority. It is, therefore, within the exclusive domain of the State Bar Councils to admit persons as advocates on their rolls or to remove their names from the rolls. There is no provision in Chapter III dealing with the admission and enrolment of advocates which restricts the entry of those who have completed 45 years as advocates. Nor has the State Bar Council made any such rule under its rule making power.

12. There is no specific provision in Section 7 of the Act which enumera