writ petition of age bar - july 2013
DESCRIPTION
Writ Petition filed against putting Age limit for doing LLBTRANSCRIPT
SYNOPSIS
The present Writ Petition has been filed before this Hon'ble
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as the
fundamental rights of the Petitioner as well as other
candidates have as enshrined in Articles 14 & 19(i)(g) of
the Constitution of India are infringed by implementation
of Rule 28 of Schedule -3 to Rules of Legal Education 2008
issued by the Respondent no.1 whereby the maximum age
limit was fixed for pursuing LL.B.. The effect of
enforcement of such amendment is that no candidates
above the age of 20 or 30 years will be allowed to take
admission in five years and three years LL.B. Courses,
respectively.
The basic issue in the present petition is that whether
BCI was within its powers u/s 7(1)(h) & (i) and section 24
(1)(c)(iii) & (iiia), 49(1)(af)(ag) & (d) of the Advocates Act,
1961 to prescribe the maximum age limit either for three
years degree course or five year courses vide Rule 28 of
Schedule -3 to Rules of Legal Education 2008?
A legal study is independent field in itself but is multi-
facet in character. It touches each and every aspect of
human life be it personal, social, environmental, economic,
medicine, engineering, computers, business, management,
accounting etc. At times an individual associated with one
field may aspire to study law in relation to his filed. For
example ‘techno legal experts’ who is an engineer as well
as an legal expert who are required to deal with
arbitration proceedings which involves technical and legal
aspect of the contractual disputes. Similarly ‘Medico- legal
experts’ who deals with law and its medical aspect of it.
Same is the case of ‘Legal- Journalist’ who engages himself
in legal reporting of cases, incidents etc.
It is pivotal duty of everyone to know the law.
Ignorance of law is not innocence but a sin which cannot
be excused. Thus, legal education is imperative not only to
produce good lawyers but also to create cultured law
abiding citizens, who are inculcated with concepts of
human values, legal ethics and human rights. The
Constitution of India basically laid down the duty of
imparting education on the states by putting the matter
pertaining to education in List II of the Seventh Schedule.
But it now forms part of List III, giving concurrent
legislative powers to the Union and the States. Legal
profession along with the medical and other professions
also falls under List III (Entry 26). However, the Union is
empowered to co-ordinate and determines standards in
institutions for higher education or research and scientific
and technical institutions besides having exclusive power,
inter alia, pertaining to educational institutions of national
importance, professional, vocational or technical training
and promotion of special studies or research. Empowered
by the Constitution to legislate in respect of legal
profession, Parliament enacted the Advocates Act, 1961,
which brought uniformity in the system of legal
practitioners in the form of Advocates and provided for
setting up of the Bar Council of India and State Bar
Councils in the States. Under clause (h) of sub-sec (1) of
Sec.7 of the Advocates Act, 1961 the Bar Council of India
has power to fix a minimum academic standard as a pre-
condition for commencement of a studies in law. The Act
thus confers on the Bar Council power to prescribe
standards of legal education and recognition of law
degrees for enrolment of persons as Advocates.
In exercise of its powers BCI brought Rule 28 of
Schedule -3 to Rules of Legal Education 2008 whereby
maximum age was prescribed for taking admission in legal
courses which was beyond its powers. Aggrieved by Rule
28 many candidates approached various High Courts, who
have granted stay of the impugned. Pursuant to which the
respondents were allowing the admission to LL.B. courses
without any maximum age limit of the students till the
current session 2013-14.
Further BCI to deal with the question of law involved
in the writ petitions pending before various High Courts
filed a transfer petition seeking transfer of all those
petitions to this Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble court was
pleased to allow the same. As such challenge to the
validity of Rule 28 of Schedule -3 to Rules of Legal
Education 2008 is pending before this Hon’ble Court.
It is submitted that fixing the maximum age limit for
being eligible for LL.B. Course has no concern either to
promote legal education or to lay down the standards for
such education but on the other end restricting the
opportunities for getting Legal Education. Hence Rule 28
deserves to be set aside.
LIST OF DATES
Petitioner is Journalist by profession is an Indian
citizen and is highly educated having Post
Graduate Diploma in Environment and
Sustainable Development; Post Graduate
Diploma in Print Journalism (English); B.Sc.
(General). The Petitioner being Journalist had
worked for Hindustan Environment Resources &
Development Centre, urban hydrological
restoration, and other green initiatives; he was
associated as a Correspondent with daily English
newspaper, Mail Today covering Environment,
National Zoological Park and Science; Worked as
Correspondent with ‘Agriculture Today’, a New
Delhi based Agriculture and Rural Development
magazine now is presently associated with
Hindustan Environment Action Group (HEAG), a
non-government social body, as Principal Project
Coordinator.
After having obtained above qualification
and experience the Petitioner reached a stage in
his professional life that he started feeling
incapacitated to effectively enforce the
Environment Law and thought of pursuing LL.B..
The Petitioner approached the Respondent
no.2 and was informed the procedure for taking
admission in the LL.B. course is that first to
obtain a validate e-coupon for online admission
Session 2013-14 and fill in the admission form,
obtained 16 digit number by SMS. Thereafter the
Petitioner made enquires on the Call Centre
numbers mentioned in the E-Coupon and it was
informed that same cannot be accepted since
the age of the Petitioner is more than 30 years.
Prior 2008 There was no age bar for the admission in the
LL.B. (3 year course) as well as LL.B. (5 year
course).
After 2008 In the year 2008, respondent no. 1 BCI
framed a Rule 28, in exercise of its rule making
powers under the Advocates Act, 1961. Rule 28
of Part-4, Schedule-3 of Bar Council of India
Rules, is quoted herein below :
“28. Age on admission
(a) subject to the condition stipulated by a
University on this behalf and the high degree of
professional commitment required, the
maximum age for seeking admission into a
stream of integrated Bachelor of Law degree
program, is limited to twenty years in case of
general category of applicants and to twenty
two years in case of applicants from SC, ST and
other Backward classes.
(b) Subject to the condition stipulated by a
University, and the general social condition of
the applicants seeking legal education belatedly,
the maximum age for seeking admission into a
stream of Three Year Bachelor Degree Course in
Law, is limited to thirty years with right of the
University to give concession of 5 further year
for the applicant belonging to SC or ST or any
other Backward classes.”
After incorporation of the aforesaid Rule-28 the
maximum age limit for taking admission in LL.B.
III years and V years course to 30 & 20 years
respectively. The said amendment is an
arbitrary exercise of the powers not vested in
BCI and is made without any basis and there is
no reasonable classification in fixing the
maximum age limit.
2009 The validity, legality and vires of Rule 28 was
challenged in various Hon’ble High Courts of the
country and the operation of the said rule
regarding the age bar, was stayed by some of
the High Courts and is un-operational till today.
As an example the Hon’ble High Court of
Madhya Pradesh in WP. No. 5427/2012 vide
order dated 8.8.2012 was pleased to observe
that admission cannot be denied to student on
the basis of Rule28. Further Hon’ble High Court
of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 31.3.2009 in
writ petition no. 6691 of 2009 was pleased to
suspend clause 28 of the said rules.
On the basis of the stay order granted by
the various High Courts, the students were being
admitted in LL.B. (Both the courses) above the
age of 30/20 years by all the Universities of the
country. All the Universities throughout the State
of U.P. were recognizing and allowing the
students above the age limit fixed by the said
Rule 28 for LL.B. course.
2009 The Respondent no. 1 had filed Transfer Petition
(C) no. 640-649 of 2009 by BCI, before this
Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble court vide order
dated 31-08-2009, this Hon’ble court has passed
the following interim order in abovementioned
Transfer Petition:
Issue Notice“There shall be interim stay of further proceedings until further orders.”
3.2.2012 Further vide order dated 3.2.2012 this Hon’ble
Court was pleased to transfer number of writ
petitions pending before various High Courts to
the Hon’ble Supreme Court so that question of
law can be finally decided.
2013-14 From the Session (2013-14), the respondent
No.2 University is not admitting the students
above the age of 30 or 20 for the LL.B. (3 year)
and LL.B. (5 year) respectively.
The respondent no.2 was giving admission to all
the students, who were above the said
prescribed age for the session 2008-09, 2009-
10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 but
surprisingly for the current session i.e. 2013-14
the respondent university has placed an
embargo on its official website that a person,
who is above an age of 20-30 cannot fill up his
or her form for LL.B. 5 years and 3 years course.
It is pertinent to mention here that in various
other professional courses like Engineering,
B.Ed., Medical, Indian Nursing Council no such
condition of maximum age limit is prescribed
for.
2.7.2013 A news article published in ‘Amar Ujala’
regarding implementation of the Rule 28 by the
Respondents.
23.7.2013The call centers of the respondent no.2 further
been informed that the last date of accepting
application form for LL.B. Courses. All this while
the Petitioner came across various candidates
who were interested in pursuing LL.B but
because of restriction imposed by Rule 28
unable to take up the course. The students are
suffering a tremendous loss and the actions of
the Respondents and the prescribed Rule no.28
are violative of Article of 14 & 19(i)(g) of the
Constitution of India and amounts to
discrimination on the ground of age, the right to
education of the student is violated.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
as stated above, it is expedient in the interest of
justice that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be
pleased to issue a suitable direction to the
respondents to allow the students above the age
group of 20 and 30 years for filling up the forms
for 5 years and 3 years LL.B. course, during the
pendency of the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, otherwise students shall suffer
irreparable loss and injury.
22.7.2013Hence the present Writ Petition
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2013
(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Akash Vashistha, S/o Sh.S.N.Vashishtha resident of R – 7/17, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad (UP) – 201001 (INDIA) ………..Petitioner
Versus
1. Bar Council of India 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,Near Bal Bhawan,New Delhi – 110 002
2. Chaudhary Charan Singh UniversityThrough its Registrar Meerut, Uttar Pradesh……..Respondents
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC INTEREST PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, ORDER, DIRECTION FOR SETTING ASIDE RULE 28 OF SCHEDULE -3 TO RULES OF LEGAL EDUCATION 2008 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, BEING ULTRAVIRES AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 19(i)(g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
TOTHE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER
ABOVE MENTIONED :
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :
1. That the petitioner is a citizen of India and seeks your
lordships leave to prefer a Writ Petition in this Hon'ble
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as
the fundamental rights of the Petitioner as well as
other candidates have as enshrined in Articles 14 &
19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India are infringed by
implementation of Rule 28 of Schedule -3 to Rules of
Legal Education 2008 issued by the Respondent no.1
whereby the maximum age was fixed for pursuing
LL.B.. The effect of enforcement of such amendment
is that no candidates above the age of 20 or 30 years
will be allowed to take admission in V and III years
LL.B. Courses, respectively.
2. The Petitioner has not approached any authority for
the reliefs similar to the subject matter and various
petitions on the similar issue were transferred to this
Hon’ble Court which were pending before various
High Courts, in Transfer Petition (C) no.640-649/2009
titled as BCI vs. K. Haridas & ors. is pending before
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
3. That the present Petitioner has not filed any other
petition in any High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India on the subject matter of the present
petition seeking identical reliefs.
4. That the brief facts giving rise to the instant Writ
Petition are as follows:
a. That the Petitioner Akash Vashishtha is an Indian
citizen residing at R – 7/17, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad
(UP) and is highly educated having following
qualifications:-
Post Graduate Diploma in Environment and Sustainable Development from the School of Sciences, Indira Gandhi National Open University;
Post Graduate Diploma in Print Journalism (English) from Institute of Media Studies and Information Technology, New Delhi YMCA.
B.Sc.(General) from SLC, Delhi University
b. The Petitioner being Journalist had worked for
Hindustan Environment Resources & Development
Centre (HERDC), a nature firm, tasked with urban and
social forestry, urban hydrological restoration, and
other green initiatives; he was associated as a
Correspondent with daily English newspaper, Mail
Today (India Today Group), covering Environment,
National Zoological Park (New Delhi) and Science;
Worked as Correspondent with ‘Agriculture Today’, a
New Delhi based Agriculture and Rural Development
magazine now is presently associated with Hindustan
Environment Action Group (HEAG), a non-government
social body, as Principal Project Coordinator.
c. That after having obtained above qualification and
experience the Petitioner reached a stage in his
professional life that he started feeling incapacitated
to effectively enforce the Environment Law and
thought of perusing LL.B.. A copy of certificates of the
Petitioner is annexed hereto and marked as
Annexure 'P-1' (Pages to )
d. That the Petitioner approached the Respondent no.2
and he was informed about the procedure to be
followed for taking admission in the LL.B. course is
that first to obtain a validate e-coupon for online
admission Session 2013-14 and fill in the admission
form, obtained 16 digit number by SMS. Thereafter
the Petitioner made enquires on the Call Centre
numbers mentioned in the E-Coupon and it was
informed that same cannot be accepted since the age
of the Petitioner is more than 30 years. It was further
been informed that the last date of accepting
application form for LL.B. Courses is 23.7.2013. A
copy of sample e-coupon is annexed hereto and
marked as Annexure 'P-2' (Pages to )
e. That all this while the Petitioner came across various
candidates who were interested in pursuing LL.B. A
copy of list of candidates who could not get admission
because of enforcement of Rule 28 is annexed hereto
and marked as Annexure 'P-3' (Pages to )
f. That the Petitioner than decided to get deep into the
matter and checked the exact status of the
restrictions imposed by the Respondent no.1 BCI.
g. That the Petitioner respectfully submits that each
state has State Bar Council, constituted under section
3 of 1961 Act and above this there will be a Bar
Council of India for the territories to which Act
applies.
h. That as per the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961 and
as well as Rules framed by Bar Council of India, in
exercise of its Rules making powers under 1961 Act,
the University is providing the degree of law to all the
law students. There are various colleges affiliated to
the Respondent University from which the students of
colleges get their respespective degrees from the
university and become a law graduate as provided
under section 2 of Advocates Act, 1961.
i. That section 7(h)(i) of Act, 1961 recognizes the
Universities, whose degrees in law shall be
qualification for enrollments as an Advocate. Further
section 24 of 1961 Act lays down that the person,
who may be admitted as an Advocate on a State Roll
and according to Clause –I (b), a person shall be
qualified to be admitted as an advocate roll, only if he
has completed the age of 21 years. The said provision
does not provide the higher limit of age, for being
admitted as an advocate on a state roll.
j. That section 49 of the Act, 1961 further confers the
power upon the Bar Council of India to make rules for
discharging its functions under 1961 Act. It empowers
the BCI to fix the minimum qualification required for
admission to LL.B. Course and can also fix a class and
category of persons entitled to be enrolled as
Advocates.
k. That prior to 2008, there was no age bar for the
admission in the LL.B. (3 year course) as well as LL.B.
(5 year course). In the year 2008, respondent no. 1
BCI framed a Rule 28, in exercise of its rule making
powers under the Advocates Act, 1961. Rule 28 of
Part-4, Schedule-3 of Bar Council of India Rules, is
quoted herein below :
“28. Age on admission
(a) subject to the condition stipulated by a
University on this behalf and the high degree of
professional commitment required, the
maximum age for seeking admission into a
stream of integrated Bachelor of Law degree
program, is limited to twenty years in case of
general category of applicants and to twenty
two years in case of applicants from SC, ST and
other Backward classes.
(b) Subject to the condition stipulated by a
University, and the general social condition of
the applicants seeking legal education belatedly,
the maximum age for seeking admission into a
stream of Three Year Bachelor Degree Course in
Law, is limited to thirty years with right of the
University to give concession of 5 further year
for the applicant belonging to SC or ST or any
other Backward classes.”
A copy of the Rule 28 is annexed hereto and marked
as Annexure 'P-4’ (Pages to )
l. That after incorporation of the aforesaid Rule-28 the
age limit for taking admission in LL.B. three years and
five years course to 30 & 20 years respectively. The
said amendment is an arbitrary exercise of the
powers not vested in BCI and is made without any
basis and there is no reasonable classification in
fixing the maximum age limit.
m. That the validity, legality and vires of Rule 28
was challenged in various Hon’ble High Courts of the
country and the operation of the said rule regarding
the age bar, was stayed by some of the High Courts
and is un-operational till today. As an example the
Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in WP. No.
5427/2012 vide order dated 8.8.2012 was pleased to
observe that admission cannot be denied to student
on the basis of Rule28. The Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 31.3.2009 in writ
petition no. 6691 of 2009 was pleased to suspend
clause 28 of the said rules. A copy of order dated
8.8.2012 passed in WP. No. 5427/2012 and order
dated 31.3.2009 passed in writ petition no.
6691/2009 is annexed hereto and marked as
Annexure 'P-5' Colly (Pages no. to )
n. That on the basis of the stay order granted by the
various High Courts, the students were being
admitted in LL.B. (Both the courses) above the age of
30/20 years by all the Universities of the country. All
the Universities throughout the State of U.P. were
recognizing and allowing the students above the age
limit fixed by the said Rule 28 for LL.B. course.
o. That in the year 2009 the Respondent no. 1 had filed
Transfer Petition (C) no. 640-649 of 2009 by BCI,
before this Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble court vide
order dated 31-08-2009, this Hon’ble court has
passed the following interim order in abovementioned
Transfer Petition:
Issue Notice“There shall be interim stay of further proceedings until further orders.”
p. That further vide order dated 3.2.2012 this Hon’ble
Court was pleased to transfer number of writ petitions
pending before various High Courts to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court so that question of law can be finally
decided. A copy of order dated 3.2.2012 passed in
TP(C) no. 640-649 of 2009 the same are annexed
hereto and marked as Annexure 'P-6' (Pages to
)
q. That from the Session (2013-14), the respondent No.2
University is not admitting the students above the
age of 30 or 20 for the LL.B. (3 year) and LL.B. (5
year) respectively.
r. That right from 2008, the students above the said
age limit, were being admitted by the respondents
and after completion of their respective courses, their
results were also declared and thereafter they have
been enrolled in the respective State Bar Council of
the country. A copy of certificates of two students
who had obtained decree after 2008 and have age
more than 30 years are annexed hereto and marked
as Annexure 'P-7' (Pages to )
s. That the respondent no.2 was giving admission to all
the students, who were above the said prescribed
age for the session 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-
12 and 2012-13 but surprisingly for the current
session i.e. 2013-14 the respondent university has
placed an embargo on its official website that a
person, who is above an age of 20-30 cannot fill up
his or her form for LL.B. 5 years and 3 years course.
t. That because of the in-action of the Respondents, the
students are suffering a tremendous loss and the
actions of the University and the prescribed rule
no.28 are violative of Article of 14 & 19(i)(g) of the
Constitution of India and amounts to discrimination
on the ground of age, the right to education of the
student is violated.
u. That it is pertinent to mention here that in various
other professional courses like Engineering, B.Ed.,
Medical, Indian Nursing Council. A copy of eligibility
conditions as contained on their respective cites are
annexed herewith as Annexure 'P-8' Colly(Pages
to )
v. That on 2.7.2013 a new article published in ‘Amar
Ujala’ regarding implementation of the Rule 28 by the
Respondents. A copy of new article published on
2.7.2013 is annexed herewith as Annexure 'P-
9'(Pages to )
w. That in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
as stated above, it is expedient in the interest of
justice that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be
pleased to issue a suitable direction to the
respondents to allow the students above the age
group of 20 and 30 years for filling up the forms for 5
years and 3 years LL.B. course, during the pendency
of the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, otherwise students shall suffer irreparable loss
and injury.
4. QUESTION OF LAW
a. What is the true and correct interpretation of sections
7, section 24, 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961 in the
facts and circumstances of the present case?
b. Whether the Respondent no.1 BCI has not acted
within its powers while fixing the maximum age limit
for taking admission in the LL.B. courses?
c. Whether despite stay order granted by various High
Courts, is not contemptuous on the part of the
Respondents to enforce rule 28 while the matters
being sub-judice before this Hon’ble Court?
d. Whether the rule 28 is violative of Articles 14, 19(i)(g)
of the Constitution of India being made in exercise of
powers not vested in BCI?
E. Whether BCI has any power under sections 7(1)(h) &
(i) and section 24 (1)(c)(iii) & (iiia), 49(1)(af)(ag) &
(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 to prescribe the
maximum age limit either for three years degree
course or five year courses?
5. That the petitioners are filing the present writ petition
before this Hon’ble Court, inter-alia on the following
amongst other grounds:
G R O U N D S
A. Because in the absence of true and correct
interpretation of sections 7, section 24, 49 of the
Advocates Act, 1961 powers have been misused by
the Respondents in the facts and circumstances of
the present case.
A. Because the Respondent no.1 BCI has acted beyond
its powers while fixing the maximum age limit for
taking admission in the LL.B. courses.
B. Because despite stay order granted by various High
Courts, it was contemptuous on the part of the
Respondents to enforce rule 28 while the matters
being sub-judice before this Hon’ble Court.
C. Because the rule 28 is violative of Articles 14 & 19(i)
(g) of the Constitution of India being made in exercise
of powers not vested in BCI.
D. Because the Respondents failed to take into account
various factors and the interest of the students while
framing rule 28 under the Advocates Act,1961.
E. Because BCI has no powers under sections 7(1)(h) &
(i) and section 24 (1)(c)(iii) & (iiia), 49(1)(af)(ag) &
(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 to prescribe the
maximum age limit either for three years degree
course or five year courses.
F. Because, the restrictions imposed by the
Respondents for current year 2013-14 is nothing but
an arbitrary and mechanical exercise of its powers
not vested in it.
G. Because, the action of the Respondents is highly
illegal and in the teeth of the judgment passed by the
different High Courts suspended the effect and
operation of the amended Rule-28.
H. Because the respondents ought not to have enforce
rule 28 especially when the Hon’ble Supreme Court
Court is seize of the matter.
I. Because, the stay order passed by different High
Courts staying the effect and operation of Rule 28
prescribing the age limit for LL.B. course are well in
the knowledge of University but the reasons best
known to the it, University is not allowing the
students above the prescribed age limit for this
current session 2013-14.
J. Because, of the in-action of the respondents, the
students are suffering a tremendous loss despite
there being sufficient seats available with various
colleges.
K. Because, Rule 28 is illegal, mechanical, arbitrary &
unconstitutional and the same is liable to be set -
aside.
L. Because, fixing the maximum age limit for being
eligible for LL.B. Course has no concern either to
promote legal education or to lay down the standards
for such education but on the other end restricting
the opportunities for getting legal education.
M. Because, the orders of different High Courts are
binding upon the Respondents and the act of the
Respondents while imposing a bar on the admissions
for reason of age bar is contemptuous and in teeth of
the stay order passed by the different High Courts.
N. Because, until and unless staying the effect and
operation of Rule-28 is not vacated, the Respondent
is bound to give admission to each and every
candidate irrespective to his or her age.
O. Because in other professional course there is no
restriction of maximum age bar for pursuing medical,
engineering, B.Ed., Nursing Council etc. courses.
P R A Y E R
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may graciously be pleased to :
i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus declaring the Rule 28 of Schedule-3 to
Rules of Legal Education 2008 issued by the Bar
Council of India as ultra-vires and violative of Article
14, 19(i)(g) of Constitution of India.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus directing the Respondents to allow the
Students above the age of 20 years and 30 years for
filling up the forms for V years and III years LL.B.
Courses.
iii pass any other or further orders as may be deemed
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL, AS
IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
Drawn by and filed by
( KRISHAN KUMAR)ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
New DelhiDrafted on : 20.7.2012Filed on : 22.7.2012
LISTING PROFORMAIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
1. Nature of the matter PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
2. (a)Name(s) of Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) AKASH VASHISTHA(b) e-mail ID......................................................................................................
3. (a)Name(s) of Respondent(s) 1. Bar Council of India 2. Chaudhary Charan Singh University
(b)e-mail ID.......................................................................................................
4. Number of case Writ Petition (C) No. of
2013
5. (a)Advocate(s) for Petitioner(s) KRISHAN KUMAR(b)e-mail ID [email protected]
6. (a) Advocate(s) for Respondent(s)......................................................................(b) e-mail ID......................................................................................................
7. Section dealing with the matter. Section .
8. Date of the impugned Order/Judgment..
8A. Name of Hon'ble Judges 8B. In Land Acquisition Matters :i) Notification/Govt. Order No. u/s.4,6).............NA............
dated.......................issued by Centre/State of....................................... NA..........................................
ii) Exact purpose of acquisition & village involved....... NA........................................
8C. In Civil Matters :-i) Suit No., Name of Lower Court. NADate of Judgment NA
8D. In Writ Petitions:-“Catchword” of other similar matters...........Rule 28 of the Advocates Act,
1961 ......
8E. In case of Motor Vehicle Accident Matters :Vehicle No........................................................................... ………………… NA..
8F. In Service Matters(i) Relevant service rule, if any.................................................................. NA...... (ii)G.O./Circular/Notification, if applicable or in question................................ NA......
8G. In Labour Industrial Disputes Matters :I.D. Reference/Award No., if applicable .......... NA.............Nature of urgency ............... NA
9. In case it is a Tax matter :
a) Tax amount involved in the matter... NAb) Whether a reference/statement of the case was called for or rejected................
NA
c) Whether similar tax matters of same parties filed earlier (may be for
earlier/other Assessment
Year)?.....................................................NA...................
d) Exemption Notification/Circular No....................................NA.........................
11. Valuation of the matter :
12. Classification of the matter : PIL
(Please fill up the number & name of relevant category with sub category as per the list circulated)
No. of Subject Category with full name :No. of sub-category with full name :
13. Title of the Act involved (Centre/State). Advocates Act, 196114. (a) Sub-Classification (indicate Section/Article of the Statute) Rules under Advocates Act, 1961 (b) Sub-Section involved. 7(1)(h) & (i) and section 24 (1)(c)(iii) & (iiia), 49(1)(af)(ag) & (d)
(c) Title of the Rules involved (Centre/State)...........................................................
(d) Sub-classification (indicate Rule/Sub-rule of the
Statute)......................................
15. Point of law and question of law raised in the case
Whether Respondents are within its powers under the Advocates Act, 1961 to prescribe maximum age limit for admission to LL.B. V years and III years courses?
16. Whether matter is not to be listed before any Hon'ble Judge?Mention the name of the Hon'ble Judge...........................................NA.....................
17. Particulars of identical/similar cases, if anya) Pending cases. TP no.640-649/2009 titled as BCI vs. K.
Haridas & ors.b) Decided cases with citation.................................................................................
17A. Was SLP/Appeal/Writ filed against same impugned Judgment/order earlier? If yes, particulars..................................NA...................................................
18. Whether the petition is against interlocutory/final order/decree in the case
19. If it is a fresh matter, please state the name of the High Court and the Coram in the impugned Judgment/Order......NA........................................................
20. If the matter was already listed in this Court :a) When was it listed?.........................................................NA............................. b) What was the Coram?.....................................................NA.............................c) What was the direction of the Court.................................NA.............................
21. Whether a date has already been fixed either by Court or on being mentioned for the hearing of matter? If so, please indicate the date fixed......................NA...22. Is there a caveator? If so, whether a notice has been issued to
him?..............NA.
23. Whether date entered in the Computer?....................................................... NA
24. If it is a criminal matter, please state :a) Whether accused has surrendered......................................................................b) Nature of offence, i.e. convicted under Section with Act.......................................c) Sentence awarded..............................................................................................d) Sentence already undergone by the accused.......................................................
24 e) (i) FIR/RC/etc...............................................................................................Date of Registration of FIR etc................................................................................Name & place of the Police Station.........................................................................
(ii) Name & place of Trial Court..............................................................................Case No. in Trial Court and Date of Judgment.........................................................
(iii) Name and place of 1st Appellate Court...............................Case No. in 1st Appellate Court & date of Judgment……......................................................
Dated 22.7.2013
(KRISHAN KUMAR)Advocate for Petitioner (S)/ Appellant(s)/Respondent(s)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2013(IN)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
Akash Vashistha ………..Petitioner
Versus
Bar Council of India & Anr.……..Respondents
AN APPLICATION FOR EX-PARTE STAYTO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND
HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONER ABOVE – NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the petitioner has filed the accompanying Writ
Petition before this Hon'ble Court under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India as the fundamental rights of
the Petitioner as well as other candidates have as
enshrined in Articles 14 & 19(i)(g) of the
Constitution of India are infringed by implementation
of Rule 28 of Schedule -3 to Rules of Legal Education
2008 issued by the Respondent no.1 whereby the
maximum age was fixed for pursuing LL.B.. The effect
of enforcement of such amendment is that no
candidates above the age of 20 or 30 years will be
allowed to take admission in V and III years LL.B.
Courses, respectively.
2. The Petitioner has stated all relevant facts in the Writ
Petition, the petitioner rely on the same and not
reproduce herein for the sake of brevity.
3. That the effect of enforcement of such amendment is
that no candidates above the age of 20 or 30 years
will be allowed to take admission in V and III years
LL.B. Courses, respectively.
4. That various petition on the similar issue were tagged
in Transfer Petition (C) no.640-649/2009 titled as BCI
vs. K. Haridas & ors. is pending before Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
5. That the petitioner has prima facie good case in his
favour as the Respondent no.1 BCI has acted beyond
its powers while fixing the maximum age limit for
taking admission in the LL.B. courses and same is
liable to be set aside. Further various High Courts
have granted stay of the impugned rule which was
well within the knowledge of respondents and were
allowing the admission to LL.B. courses without any
maximum age limit of the students till the current
session 2013-14.
6. That the Petitioner and other students will suffer
irreparable loss and injury if they were not allowed to
take admission in three years and five years LL.B.
courses despite there being sufficient seats available
with various colleges.
7. That since the last date of filing of forms for the
session 2013-14 is 23.7.2013, it will be in the interest
of justice that the petitioners and other candidates
may be allowed to submit their forms for pursuing
their professional courses in law subject to outcome
of the present petition.
P R A Y E R
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the
petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court
may graciously be pleased to:-
(a) grant ex-parte stay implementation of the Rule 28 of
Schedule-3 to Rules of Legal Education 2008 issued
by the Bar Council of India and direct Respondents to
allow Petitioner and other students of age group of 20
and 30 years for filling up the forms for 5 years and 3
years LL.B. course, till the decision of the Writ
Petition; and
(b) pass any other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
AND THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY
BOUND SHALL EVERY PRAY.
DRAWN & FILED BY;
[KRISHAN KUMAR]ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
NEW DELHIFILED ON: 22.7.2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2013(IN)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
Akash Vashistha ………..Petitioner
Versus
Bar Council of India & Anr.……..Respondents
AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING OFFICIAL TRANSLATION
TO,THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND
HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THEPETITIONER ABOVE – NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the petitioner has filed the accompanying Writ
Petition before this Hon'ble Court under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India as the fundamental rights of
the Petitioner as well as other candidates have as
enshrined in Articles 14 & 19(i)(g) of the
Constitution of India are infringed by implementation
of Rule 28 of Schedule -3 to Rules of Legal Education
2008 issued by the Respondent no.1 whereby the
maximum age was fixed for pursuing LL.B.. The effect
of enforcement of such amendment is that no
candidates above the age of 20 or 30 years will be
allowed to take admission in five years and three
years LL.B. Courses, respectively.
2. The Petitioner has stated all relevant facts in the Writ
Petition, the petitioner rely on the same and not
reproduce herein for the sake of brevity.
3. That Annexure P- is the copy of News Article dated
2.7.2013 which was originally in Hindi and for better
understanding of the present case it is necessary to
peruse the same. The said documents have been
translated in English by an Advocate who has ample
knowledge of the said language and the said
translations have been filed with this Special Leave
Petition and have been marked as Annexures P- .
4. That it is humbly submitted that appointing an official
translator would result in an unnecessary delay and
an expense. The Petitioner is therefore praying for an
exemption from filing official translation of the
Annexure P- .
PRAYER
IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:
a. Exempt the Petitioner from filing the official
translation of annexures P- ; and
b. Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court deems
fit in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
Filed on Filed by :
NEW DELHI KRISHAN KUMARDATED 22.7.2013 ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2013
[PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUITION OF INDIA]
IN THE MATTER OF:
Akash Vashistha ………..Petitioner
Versus
Bar Council of India & Anr. ……..Respondents
WITH
I.A. NO. /2013 [An Application for Ex-Parte Stay]
ANDI.A. NO. /2013
[An Application for Ex-Parte Stay]
P A P E R B O O K
[FOR INDEX : KINDLY SEE INSIDE]
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER : KRISHAN KUMARFILED ON: 22.7.2013
I N D E X
SL.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NOS.
1. Listing Performa A – A1
2. List of Dates & Events B – D
3. Writ Petition with Affidavit 1 –
4. ANNEXURE:P/1:
5. ANNEXURE:P/2:
6. ANNEXURE:P/3:
5. ANNEXURE:P/4:
6. ANNEXURE:P/5:
7. ANNEXURE:P/6:
8. I.A. NO. /2013 An Application for Ex-Parte Stay
9. I.A. NO. /2013 An Application for exemption for filing OT