Thomas Dohling (Service) 01 September 2009

Contradictory Reports.

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed all further proceedings in 12 High Courts on petitions challenging a Bar Council of India Rule fixing 20 years as upper age limit for admission to five-year integrated law course and 30 years for three-year degree course. (The Hindu, 31.8.2009)

New Delhi, Aug. 31: The Supreme Court has stayed a Bar Council rule that set age limits on students of legal courses. (The Telegraph, Kolkata.)

Can anyone shed some light on the above seemingly contradictory reports? Which one is true? Does anyone have the details of what transpired in the SC on this matter?

Reply Follow

1 Replies

HANUMANT DESHMUKH (Activist) 15 September 2009

IMHO, this is one of the most rediculuous restirctions placed on education. Apparantly, this restriction has been placed to "improve" the quality of lawyer. But what they fail to understand is that the quality of lawyers is bad not because of the age but because of poor curricular, poor pattern of examination, and poor conduction of the courses by Universities.

Age has nothing to do with the quality of the lawyers. In fact, getting educated and experienced professionals from other fields into Law is actually is a good thing and is the need of the hour.

Age restriction rule clearly shows that the powers that be have no clue about what is wrong with existing legal education in India.

Hanumant Deshmukh.
www.hanumant.com