Bar Council of India Withdraws Upper-Age Limit for LLB Admissions, Supreme Court Disposes Plea

The Bar Council of India (BCI) informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday that it has withdrawn the upper-age restrictions for admission to three-year and five-year Bachelor of Law programmes. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was apprised of the development by Advocate-on-Record Radhika Gautam, appearing for the BCI, during the hearing of a petition filed by Rishab Duggal.

What prompted the BCI to withdraw the upper-age limit for LLB admissions?

The BCI General Council withdrew the age restriction pursuant to a reasoned order by former Delhi High Court Chief Justice Rajendra Menon, Co-Chairman of the Legal Education Committee, and a resolution of the Standing Committee on Legal Education. The Council concluded that existing academic requirements adequately safeguard legal-education standards without excluding candidates solely on the basis of age.

The petition challenged a 2016 circular by which the BCI restored Clause 28 in Schedule III of Rule 11 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. The clause imposed a maximum age limit of 20 years for admission to the integrated five-year law degree programme. The provision had been withdrawn in 2013 but was reinstated through the impugned circular.

Advocate Zoheb Hossain, representing the petitioner, urged the Court to record the concluding lines of the BCI resolution which stated that the General Council's decision was 'conscious and final'. He submitted that the BCI had previously withdrawn and subsequently restored the same provision, raising concerns over consistency.

In response, Ms Gautam submitted that the resolution had been passed only on the previous day, which precluded its prior filing. The Bench accepted the statement and closed the matter in view of the resolution.

The BCI resolution noted that the withdrawal followed the Supreme Court's order in August 2024, wherein counsel for the BCI was directed to obtain instructions on the withdrawal of the impugned circular. After independent consideration, the General Council agreed that an absolute maximum age restriction lacked sufficient academic justification.

According to the resolution, the Council is satisfied that existing requirements governing educational qualifications, attendance, teaching hours, examinations and professional training adequately safeguard standards of legal education, without excluding otherwise eligible candidates merely on account of age.

What were the constitutional grounds raised against the age restriction?

The petitioner contended that the impugned provision violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. It was submitted that a similar age bar introduced in 1993 under Rule 9 of Chapter III of Part VI of the BCI Rules, which barred enrolment as an advocate after 45 years of age, was struck down by the Supreme Court in Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice v. Bar Council of India. The plea argued that restricting admission to law courses constitutes an even harsher and more unreasonable restriction contrary to the principle laid down in that judgment.

The petition further highlighted conflicting High Court judgments on the validity of Clause 28. While the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Bombay High Court declared the clause ultra vires the Advocates Act, the Madras High Court upheld the age limit. The petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court's intervention was indispensable to ensure certainty for students and consistency in the BCI's approach.

With the BCI's formal withdrawal of the age restriction, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition as infructuous, bringing finality to the challenge against the 2016 circular.