Supreme Court disposes of plea against BCI age limit for LLB courses after BCI withdraws restrictions
- Case
- Rishabh Duggal v. Bar Council of India
- Bench
- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana
- Statutes
- Rules of Legal Education, 2008 — s.Clause 28 of Schedule III
- Source
- Verdictum
In Rishabh Duggal v. Bar Council of India, the Supreme Court disposed of a plea challenging the BCI's upper age limit for LLB courses as infructuous. This followed the Bar Council of India's decision to withdraw the age restrictions for admission to both three-year and five-year law degree programmes, allowing aspirants of all age groups to pursue legal education.
Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established
A petition becomes infructuous and can be disposed of when the underlying cause of action or the challenged rule/circular is withdrawn by the respondent, rendering the relief sought by the petitioner unnecessary.
Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates
Advocates should monitor changes in regulatory body rules, as withdrawal of a challenged rule can lead to the disposal of pending litigation. Litigants should be aware that if the subject matter of their petition is resolved by the respondent, the court may deem the petition infructuous.
Key Legal Takeaways
- 1The Bar Council of India has withdrawn the upper age limit for admission to 3-year and 5-year LLB courses.
- 2The Supreme Court disposed of the challenge against the age restrictions as infructuous due to the BCI's withdrawal.
- 3Previously, the Supreme Court had stayed the BCI's 2016 circular prescribing age limits.
The Legal Issue
The Supreme Court was hearing a plea filed by Rishabh Duggal challenging a 2016 circular issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI). This circular had reinstated Clause 28 of Schedule III of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, which prescribed an upper age limit for admission to law degree programmes. Specifically, it set a maximum age limit of 20 years for the five-year integrated law programme and 45 years for the three-year course (though the 2016 circular initially prescribed 20 years for general category and 22 years for reserved category for the five-year course). The Apex Court had previously stayed this age restriction in March 2017.
Court's Reasoning
The BCI, through Advocate Radhika Gautam, informed the Supreme Court that its General Council had resolved to withdraw the upper-age restrictions for admission to both three-year and five-year law degree programmes. This decision by the BCI effectively removed the basis of the challenge brought by Rishabh Duggal. Taking note of this withdrawal, the bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, concluded that the petition had become infructuous. The Court had earlier, on September 25, asked the BCI to clarify its stance on withdrawing the age limit.
What Follows
As a result of the BCI's withdrawal of the age restrictions, the Supreme Court disposed of the plea. This means that there is no longer an upper age limit for aspirants seeking admission to three-year and five-year law degree courses in India. The BCI's decision paves the way for individuals of all age groups to pursue legal education without facing age-related barriers.