IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 31.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

W.P.No.12785 of 2014

and M.P.No.1 of 2014

P.Sukumar

.. Petitioner

Versus

1. Bar Council of India,

Rep by its Secretary,

No.21, Rouse Avenue,

Institutional Area,

New Delhi 110 002.

2. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry,

Rep by its Secretary,

High Court Campus,

Chennai 600 104.

.. Respondents

Prayer

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the

records in connection with the impugned order dated 17.03.2014

in ROC.No.1077 of 2014 passed by the 2^nd respondent and quash the

same.

For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Ramamoorthi

For Respondents :

Mr.S.R.Raghunathan for R1

Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaran for R2

ORDER

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

Heard both sides and perused the documents filed in the form

of 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

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

Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry issued a show cause notice

dated 17.03.2014 in ROC.No.1077 of 2014, 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 their 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 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.