Supreme Court Judgement on Age Limit for Llb Course 2021
After several disputes before various high courts and the Supreme Court, BCI changed the age limit for both law courts to 22 and 45, respectively. A number of written applications are still pending before the Supreme Court in this regard. Importantly, the Supreme Court today suspended the Bar Council of India`s opinion imposing an age limit for admission to LL.B courses. The petitioners pointed out that the clause had been upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Rajan Sharma v. The Bar Council of India and the High Court of Bombay in Yasmin e Tavaria v. Union of India. However, the Madras High Court ruled in the case of Mr. Santhosh Antony Vareed v. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, with the High Court confirming the upper age limit of 30 years for admission to the 3-year Bachelor of Laws programme.
As the hearing drew to a close, the OFM`s counsel asked the court to make the applicants` admission dependent on the outcome of the case. The court replied that it was inclined to order the opposite. Bobde J. noted: In this case, the Commission concluded that the OFM is a statutory body established under section 4 of the Lawyers Act 1961. Section 7 of the Act sets out the tasks of the BCI, including the promotion of legal education in India and the establishment of standards for such education in consultation with Indian universities and state bar councils. In addition, section 49 of the Advocates Act 1961 empowers the BCI to make rules governing the exercise of its functions under that Act, such as: the prescription of qualifications and disqualifications to become a member of a council of the Bar Association, minimum qualifications for admission to a law degree at a recognised university, setting legal education standards for Indian universities, etc. Thus, it should be noted that the BCI appears to carry out tasks of a regulatory nature with regard to the legal profession. With this arrangement, LL.B. programs were opened regardless of the age of the applicants. She asked the Supreme Court to declare that she has the fundamental right to legal education at a university or institution of her choice and that this right is protected by article 21 of the Constitution.
After the hearing, a two-judge panel consisting of Judges Dipak Misra and Arun Mishra sent a notice to the BCI, which can be returned in four weeks. Although the Board did not suspend the application of the rule, it gave the applicants the freedom to raise the issue with a view to obtaining interim measures if necessary. The petitioners argued that conflicting judgments had been rendered by various supreme courts in written motions challenging the validity of section 28 and that, therefore, the interference of the Supreme Court was necessary to ensure the safety of students` lives and the consistency and uniformity of the BCI`s approach to the matter. Senior counsel Sanjay Hegde and case lawyer Zoheb Hossain (both published on a pro bono basis) argued that section 28 of the Legal Education Rules 2008, which restored the maximum age limit of 20 years for admission to the 5-year integrated law school, was arbitrary and illegal. Lawyer Hegde argued that the new provision violates the fundamental rights of prospective law students under Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution. A 77-year-old woman seeking to study law has gone to the Supreme Court to challenge the rules of legal education and the BCI, which set the limit for admission to a 3-year LLB course to 30 years and a 5-year course to 20 years. After being denied admission to a three-year LLB course, Rajkumari Tyagi, a resident of Sahibabad, Uttar Pradesh, filed a petition for the intervention of the Supreme Court in a case that is already pending and challenging the Bar Council of India (BCI) rule. The court said it would suspend the September 2016 notice imposing the age limit and hear the case. Justices SA Bobde and L Nageswara Rao expressed their dissatisfaction with the BCI`s interim measure to raise the age limit to 22 for the five-year course and 45 for the three-year course.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday informed the Bar Council of India (BCI) of a petition by two legal applicants challenging the maximum age limit of 20 years for admission to the 5-year integrated law college. There will be no age limit for the LLB exam this academic year, as the Supreme Court has suspended the Bar Council of India`s (BCI) opinion on the age limit for law courses. When the case was called. According to the applicant`s lawyer, Srinivas Rao Kaveti, Raveendra Babu, who passed the LLB entrance examination in Andhra Pradesh in October 2020, may be admitted on the basis of clause no. 28 of the BCI Legal Education Rules 2008, which sets the age limit for legal education, have not been admitted. According to the clause, the upper age limit is 20 years (22 years for SC/ST students) for admission to the five-year integrated law study and 30 years (35 years for SC/ST students) for the three-year program. When the issue was raised today, lawyer AK Prasad, who represented BCI, conveyed the panel`s decision to raise the age limit. However, Hossain argued that this would not address the concerns of some petitioners over the age of 22. Justice Bobde seemed to agree. The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the Indian Bar Council violated the Competition Act by „abusing its dominant position in the market“ by introducing a 30-year age limit for legal education. The application was filed by a man who is now in the public service claiming that by enacting section 28 of Schedule III, rule 11 in Part IV – Rules of.
„If someone is 23 or 24, they can`t apply. On the one hand, you promote legal education, on the other hand, your committee prescribes an age limit. „It has been established (by the Supreme Court) that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution is not limited to mere `animal existence`, but also includes the right to live in dignity, which includes the ability to read and write and the right to receive instruction in a course/medium of one`s choice,“ the plea reads. The complainant also applied to the Commission for interim measures under Article 33 of the Law suspending clause 28 at issue. He argued that the BCI had alleged a prima facie case of a violation of section 4 of the Act and that the balancing of appropriateness was in his favour. He adds that he and many other candidates for legal education in India would suffer irreparable loss and damage if the application of article 28 were not suspended. Case Title: Thupili Raveendra Babu v. Competition Commission of India and ORS. About the author: PCI Babai is a Delhi-based hacker, a cynic from start to finish.
Applicant T Raveendra Babu, a 53-year-old engineer from CPWD who is considering switching to VRS and seeking justice, alleges that BCI is abusing its dominant position in breach of section 4 of the Competition Act 2002 by being subjected to such restrictions. It should be noted that in the In re: Dilip Modwil and Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA)1, which was decided on 12.09.2014, the Commission had the opportunity to examine IRDAI`s status as a `company` within the meaning of the law. The Commission had found that any entity may fall within the definition of an undertaking if it carries out an activity related to the economic and commercial activities referred to therein. It was also found that the regulatory tasks carried out by a body do not in themselves fall within the competence of the Commission. „Suspension of the communication of 17 September 2016 pending the decision and all measures arising therefrom“. On 4 April, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal against the decision of the Competition Commission of India (ICC) rejecting the impugned section 28 of the Legal Education Regulations 2008, which excludes from legal education general category candidates over the age of 30. In the present case, while BCI appears to be performing its regulatory functions, it cannot be classified as an `undertaking` within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Act, so that the allegations relating to the exercise of such functions, which do not appear to be economic in nature, do not merit examination under section 4 of the Act. said the ICC. READ | I have never seen a Supreme Court justice as firm and steadfast as Arun Mishra: AG Venugopal The motion was filed by a man who is now in the service of the government, stating that by enacting section 28 of Schedule III, Rule 11 of Part IV – Legal Education Rules, 2008 under the Lawyers Act, 1961 (excluding general class candidates who have reached the age of over 30 are excluded from legal education), the OFM imposed an age limit on newcomers to enter legal education, creating indirect barriers for newcomers to the legal service profession. The plea indicates that Tyagi developed a passion for studying law after being left alone to defend her late husband`s estate.
He states that she had to settle legal issues without the use of a lawyer at any time during the processing of the will or the identification of the files. The 52-year-old complainant works as a senior engineer in the Central Department of Public Works (CPWD) of the Ministry of Urban Development of the Government of India and plans to retire voluntarily to pursue legal training. He sat for the LLB (3 years) entrance exam in the state of Andhra Pradesh (APLAWCET) on 01.10.2020 and obtained the first place of the said exam in the state.