Read here that a Bar has rejected a successful LLB student from enrolling as an advocate citing age restriction. Since that board has restricted only experts to record the replies, i'm posting my views here:
There seems to be a serious problem with logical interpretation in the above move. If the age restriction has to be in place, the same has to start from the college/university which are being approved by the BCI. The screening process should start from the college. The rules of the game should not be altered after the game has begun.
If the university allows (based on the stay) a person to complete the course successfully, the logical extension runs there and he becomes eligible for enrolment too. How come this confusion? Looks like someone who doesn’t apply logic has taken a call in this case. The concerned student should get hold of those lawyers who are presenting this case in SC and pray for appropriate directions from SC to the BCI in this regard.
Also, there are many experts (areas like Labour, Sales Tax, etc) in government departments (as well as private) who would like to take voluntary retirement after 20 years of service. Having practice in that area will help them present the case in a better manner in the courts. They might like to qualify in Law and take up such specialised practice after 40. They still can manage another 20-25 years of productive legal service. Why BCI should close the door for such professionals.
Also knowledge can be acquired at any age and propagated at any age too. We see many completing their doctorate in their 50s and contributing to breakthrough research thereafter. Considering all these, BCI should withdraw its appeal in SC and help propagate knowledge than such back stabbing actions.
If someone can provide me with the contact details of the those advocates who are defending the students in SC, I can provide them more points to defend the student community effectively.