The Supreme Court has upheld verdicts of various High Courts quashing a rule framed by several State Bar Councils fixing the upper age limit of 45 years for enrolment as an advocate.
A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice H.L. Dattu and Justices Madan B Lokur and A.K. Sikri dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the various Bar councils challenging the verdicts setting aside the controversial rule.
The CJI observed “How can this be done? Lot of people enrol as lawyers after retirement or after their resignation. In fact, I know about one person in Karnataka who was under suspension and he started practising law. He turned out to be one of the best lawyers in the state. These things do happen.”
The Bench pointed out that when Parliament had not fixed any upper age limit for enrolment as lawyers, the State Bar Councils could not create a distinction between two similarly placed persons without any authority to do so.
The Bench rejected the argument advanced on behalf of the bar councils that the upper age limit of 45 years was fixed to bring in uniformity in professional practice across the States and such rules would upkeep the professional standards and protect the interests of lawyers.
Meanwhile the Bar Council of India has framed a new Certificate of Practice and Renewal Rules, 2014 on October 30 stating that advocates could not practice directly in the Supreme Court unless they had at least five years of experience conducting trials in lower and the High Court.
According to the new rules, an advocate must practice for at least two years in a trial court and three years in a high court before being allowed to argue in the Supreme Court. These rules which also contemplate renewal every five years will come into effect after ratification by the State Bar Councils.
Many lawyers feel that if this rule is given effect to, many young lawyers will be debarred from practicing in the apex court. They point out that Section 30 of the Advocates Act provide for lawyers to practice in any court or forum in the country. While so, they said the rules cannot override the provisions of the Act.
