IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

W.P. Nos. 9454 to 9458 of 2014

and

M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2014

A.Chackrapani

...Petitioner in W.P.No.9454 of 2014

K.S.Kumar

...Petitioner in W.P.No.9455 of 2014

M.P.Parthiban

...Petitioner in W.P.No.9456 of 2014

E.Theagarajan

...Petitioner in W.P.No.9457 of 2014

S.Sheela

...Petitioner in W.P.No.9458 of 2014

Versus

1.Bar Council of India

Rep by its Secretary

(Statutory Body constituted under the

Advocates Act, 1961)

No.21,Rouse Avenue Institutional Area

New Delhi – 110 002

2.The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry

Represented by its Secretary

High Court Campus

Chennai – 600 104

3.Sri Venkateswara University

(Approved & Affiliated by the Bar Council of India)

Represented by Registrar

Prakasan Nagar Colony

Sri Padmavathi Mahila Visvavidyalan

Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh – 517 502

...R1 to R3 in all W.Ps

4.Dr.Ambedkar Law College

(Affiliated to Sri Venkateswara University Tirupati,

Permitted by APSCHE, Hyderabad recogined

by Bar Council of India, New Delhi)

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Represented by its Principal

19-3-2J/F1/A20 K.K Cheruvu

Renigunda Road, Tirupati – 517 501

..Respondent No.4 in W.P.Nos. 9454 & 9457/2014

4. Anantha College Of Law

(Affiliated to Sri Venkateswara University Tirupati,

Permitted by APSCHE, Hyderabad recogined

by Bar Council of India, New Delhi)

Represented by its Principal

19-12-1/12 Kesavayanagunta

Tirupati 517 501

...R4 in W.P. No. 9458/2014

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to

call for the records relating to the order dated 17.03.2014 of

the 2^nd respondent herein in ROC.Nos.987, 964, 992, 1090 & 1075

of 2014 and quash the same and direct the 1^st and 2^nd Respondent

to issue permanent certificate of enrollment without any

endorsement on the certificate.

In all W.Ps.

For Petitioners :Mr.U.M.Ravichandran

For Respondents :Mr.S.R.Raghunathan for R1

Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar for R2

No appearance for R3 & R4

COMMON ORDER

(Order of the court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)

Heard both sides and perused the documents enclosed in

the typed set of papers.

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 notices

dated 17.03.2014, 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.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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