“The power to impose minimum qualifications, can it ever be converted into an upper age limit?
The BCI, however, said the upper age limit was prescribed because most five-year law courses were residential.
“We have imposed the upper limit because most of the five-year law courses are residential.
Most three-year law courses are not residential, but five-year law courses are mostly residential,” submitted the BCI.
This is not really a criterion to determine the upper age limit,” held Justice Bagchi.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a challenge to the BCI's prescription of the upper age limit.
Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the BCI's power to prescribe minimum qualifications under the Advocates Act could not be extended to impose an upper age limit.
“The power to impose minimum qualifications, can it ever be converted into an upper age limit? This power itself is missing under the Advocates Act,” contended Hossain.
The BCI, however, said the upper age limit was prescribed because most five-year law courses were residential.
“We have imposed the upper limit because most of the five-year law courses are residential. However, the Court can determine the age. We also have a three-year law course. If someone wants to study law beyond a certain age, they can do the three-year course. Most three-year law courses are not residential, but five-year law courses are mostly residential,” submitted the BCI.
Taking note of these submissions, Justice Bagchi asked whether the residential nature of a course could justify an age restriction.
“Not all five-year law courses are residential. See Calcutta University. This is not really a criterion to determine the upper age limit,” held Justice Bagchi.
