LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
The Indian Constitution Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Vishal Gupta (lawyer)     01 August 2009

Should be there be any age limit for law admission?

If in others courses there is age limit then why not in Law. Today there are lotsof hue and cry all over. Recently the Hon'ble AP high court has declared that provosion as unconstitutional which prescribes age limit for taking law course. if there will no bar then the profession will loss its professionality.



Learning

 29 Replies

ritu bhadana (advocate)     01 August 2009

 i totally agree with you vishal

narainreddy (Lawyer)     01 August 2009

"The Bar Counil of India (BCI) is imposing an age limit on fresh law admissions. 



No one above the age of 20 can join the integrated five-year LLB course for which you enrol after passing class XII; and you cannot be more than 30 if you want to join the three-year LLB degree course (for which you need to have a bachelor’s degree in any other discipline)."

 

Whether this is struck down by AP High Court? 

1 Like

Vishal Gupta (lawyer)     01 August 2009

mr reddy i hav just read in a newspaper that AP high court has declarecd as it so. now the central govt is going to file a special transfer petitions in the Apex court to heard all the cases on the same subject matter so that the matter can be finally decided.


1 Like

Thomas Dohling (Service)     01 September 2009

This is from the Hindu of 31.8.2009 :

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.

A Bench consisting of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan stayed the proceedings on a petition by the Bar Council seeking transfer of all the cases pending in various High Courts to the Supreme Court. Senior counsel M.N. Krishnamani, appearing for the BCI, said as different orders were passed by the High Courts, the matter required consideration by the Supreme Court. The Bench issued notice to respondents cited by the BCI.

The petitions in the High Courts questioned Clause 28 of Schedule III to the Rules of Education, 2008 fixing the maximum age limit for admission to five and three-year law courses as ultra vires the Advocates Act. They contended that the BCI was not empowered to restrict admission by introducing the upper age limit. When there was no provision in the Advocates Act, such restrictions could not be imposed under the Rules.

The BCI said as substantial questions of law of general importance were involved, the matter required to be decided expeditiously by the Supreme Court. It also prayed for stay of further proceedings in High Courts.

This is from the Telegraph of 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 council has set 20 years as the upper age limit for entrants to the five-year integrated LLB course and 30 years for enrolling in the three-year degree version.

The Bar Council of India, the apex regulatory body for legal education, had introduced the rule last September to check the declining standards of legal education by getting in younger people. The only concession was a five-year relaxation for reserved category students.

The rule has been challenged in at least 11 high courts on many grounds. Critics say keeping out those interested in studying the subject is not the way to reduce overcrowding. The rule will also restrict lateral entry of professionals from other fields, they say.

Many doctors, engineers, CAs and others take up the law courses later in life to deal with cases related to their areas of specialisation.

The age limit is arbitrary and unreasonable, the critics say. It is also against the principle of equality (Article 14 of the Constitution) and the right to pursue any trade, occupation or profession of choice under Article 19.

The council believes setting an age limit will improve the quality of lawyers and help deal with the challenges posed by liberalisation of the profession.

It had earlier tried to prevent those above 45 from enrolling as lawyers but courts spiked the rule.

NOW TELL ME, WHICH ONE IS CORRECT?? 

1 Like

R.M.Bhaduri (Lawyer)     05 September 2009

The quality of our Bar has deteriorated and only to check further deterioration, the Bar Council proposed to limit the age, as only young and enthusiastic lawyers can regain the lost pride and notwithstanding to the above, unless & until the Bar produces quality lawyers the same cannot be expected from the Bench. Now the time has come to re-evaluate and check the loopholes as common people have full faith in the our Judicial system as their ultimate relief giver which mustn't be tarnished.

Sanjay C Rane (Practising Corporate Lawyer)     01 October 2009

I think imposing age limit on a Course like Law which involves the application of ones mental faculties is illogical. Even on the grounds of merit, there is no proof that a person joining a law course at a young age would necessarily prove to be a better Lawyer than a person joining the Law Course after the age of 20/30 (limit for five year/three year course respectively). Further even best professional courses like Chartered Accountancy and Company Secretaryship which have produced members of exceptional quality do not have any age bar, though  their course contents and training are qualitatively much superior as compared to Law Courses run in India. The Bar Council should instead focus on improving the course contents, the study materials, set rigorous examination standards and evaluation system and check malpractices therein, improve legal training of apprentices instead of imposing artificial barriers such as age restriction on joining law course to improve the professional and ethical standards of its members.

Advocate S. C. Rane   

R VISWANATHAN (Manager Finance)     26 November 2009

no

Thomas Dohling (Service)     17 December 2009

No?  I totally agree with Shri Rane.

1 Like

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     17 December 2009

 Is there deterioration in judiciary only requiring restrictions? What about Ministers? 

For acquiring knowledge, age limit? Very surprising?

Sravan Krishna (Senior Software Engineer)     10 March 2010

I dont think age limit is wise to be implemented.

First of all we are considering only fortunate people get better living, which is in-humane.

At first education should be available for all, which is not possible even in 10 years.

If it is to be really implemented then it has to be every where, for everybody, no one is an exception.

Most of the people dont even have access to proper education in this country, just because of in-humane degrees, people, and capitalists, specially ministers, and added boon is reservation.

Even the country doesnt recognize the Open University System properly. A degree awarded by any university is a degree.

Education should be equally accepted and reach everyone.

I dont think age limit in such situations is really deemed fit and proper.

First put the agelimit and qualifications for people in politics.

It looks like dunces are ruling the intelligent, and earning millions and crores of rupees without any basic effort.

I have recently heard that for the year 2010 Supreme Court has favoured the decision of age limit for LAW as 30 for 3YDC, and 20 for 5YDC.

Could any one clarify this.

Sravan Krishna (Senior Software Engineer)     10 March 2010

Sravan Krishna (Senior Software Engineer)     10 March 2010

Originally posted by :Sravan Krishna
"


I dont think age limit is wise to be implemented.

First of all we are considering only fortunate people get better living, which is in-humane.

At first education should be available for all, which is not possible even in 10 years.

If it is to be really implemented then it has to be every where, for everybody, no one is an exception.

Most of the people dont even have access to proper education in this country, just because of the environment they live, family situations, in-humane degrees, people, and capitalists, specially ministers, and added boon is reservation.

Even the country doesnt recognize the Open University System properly.

A degree awarded by any university is a degree - We miss the simple basic.

Education should be equally accepted and reach everyone.

I dont think age limit in such situations is really deemed fit and proper.

First put the agelimit and qualifications for people in politics.

It looks like dunces are ruling the intelligent, and earning millions and crores of rupees without any basic effort. Are they better than scientists, doctors, engineers, etc. They are only fortunate, thats all.
 

Country doesnt seem to prosper if it has missions to reach the moon or mars.

Country prospers only when if there is an elimination of social inequality and powerty.

 

Age limit is clearly an social inequality, denying the right to learn for the needy.

 

I have recently heard that for the year 2010 Supreme Court has favoured the decision of age limit for LAW as 30 for 3YDC, and 20 for 5YDC.

Could any one clarify this.

"

Sravan Krishna (Senior Software Engineer)     10 March 2010

I totally agree with Rane.

Alice Patel (manager)     10 March 2010

Hi !!! I agree with you !!!!


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query