The Bar Council of India (BCI) has informed the Supreme Court that it has withdrawn the upper age restrictions for admission to three-year and five-year law degree programmes. Noting the submission, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana disposed of the petition challenging the age limits.
The plea, filed by Rishabh Duggal, contested the BCI's resolution dated September 17, 2016, which revived an upper age limit of 22 years for the five-year integrated LLB course and 45 years for the three-year LLB course. The BCI had originally prescribed age caps in its Rules of Legal Education, 2008, setting the limit at 20 years for the five-year course and 30 years for the three-year course, with a five-year relaxation for reserved categories. These restrictions were withdrawn in 2013 but subsequently revived through the 2016 resolution.
Court Questions Residential Character As Basis For Age Limit
During proceedings two months prior to the disposal, the bench had questioned whether the residential nature of certain law programmes could justify an upper age ceiling. The BCI's counsel had submitted that the restriction for the five-year integrated course was prescribed because most such programmes are residential and designed for younger students.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that not all five-year law courses are residential in character. The judge pointed out that institutions such as the University of Calcutta offer non-residential five-year programmes. Consequently, the bench questioned whether the nature of the course could serve as a valid basis for determining the maximum age for admission.
Challenge To BCI's Statutory Authority
Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the challenge went to the very authority of the BCI to prescribe an upper age limit. He submitted that while the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the Council to prescribe minimum qualifications and regulate standards of legal education, that power cannot be extended to imposing a maximum age for admission. The petitioners contested the restrictions on constitutional grounds under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, as well as on statutory grounds regarding the scope of the BCI's rule-making power.
The bench had directed the BCI to obtain instructions on whether it would agree to withdraw the disputed resolution. At the final hearing, the Council's counsel stated she had instructions to leave the issue to the Supreme Court while explaining the rationale behind the restriction. Following the BCI's confirmation that the age restriction had been withdrawn, the court disposed of the matter.
What Was The BCI Resolution That The Supreme Court Examined?
The BCI's 2016 resolution revived an upper age limit of 22 years for the five-year integrated LLB course and 45 years for the three-year LLB course, after a previous withdrawal of such caps in 2013. The original 2008 rules had set limits at 20 years and 30 years respectively with category relaxations.
Timeline Of BCI Age Limit Regulations
Year | Regulatory Action | Age Limits Prescribed |
|---|---|---|
2008 | Rules of Legal Education notified | 5-year LLB: 20 years (General); 3-year LLB: 30 years (General). 5-year relaxation for reserved categories. |
2013 | Age restriction provision withdrawn | No upper age limit prescribed. |
2016 | Resolution dated September 17 revives restriction | 5-year LLB: 22 years; 3-year LLB: 45 years. |
2017 | Supreme Court stays 2016 resolution | Stay on implementation of age caps. |
2025 | BCI informs Supreme Court of withdrawal | Upper age restrictions withdrawn; petition disposed of. |
The disposal of the petition effectively removes the regulatory barrier for candidates exceeding the previously prescribed age thresholds seeking admission to law degree programmes across the country.