IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 06.04.2022

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.MAHADEVAN

and

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

W.P.No.10124 of 2014

and M.P.No.1 of 2014

R.Venkataraman

...Petitioner

Versus

1.The Secretary,

Bar Council of India,

21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,

Near Bal Bhawan

New Delhi – 110 002.

2.The Secretary,

Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry,

High Court Campus,

Chennai – 600 104.

...Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling

for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the

impugned notice cum order bearing R.O.C.No.972 dated 17.03.2014

to quash the same.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.S.Navaneethakrishnan

For Respondent – 1

:

Mr.S.R.Raghunathan

Respondent – 2

:

Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar

ORDER

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

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

record.

2. This Court by order dated 03.02.2014, in W.P(MD)

No.10315 of 2013, directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and

Puducherry to take necessary action for removal of advocates,

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

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 second

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.

3. The issue involved herein is no longer res integra.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Council of Legal

Aid and Advice and others v. Bar Council of India and another

reported in 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