Name of the Court
Supreme Court of India
All Citations of the Case
AIR 1995 SC 691 : (1995) 1 ALT 44 : (1995) 97 BOMLR 248 : (1995) 1 GLR 848 : (1995) 1 JT 423 : (1995) 1 KLT 311 : (1995) 1 SCALE 181 : (1995) 1 SCC 732 : (1995) 1 SCR 304 : (1995) 1 UJ 344
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=285068
Facts of the Case
The Bar Council of India introduced Rule 9 via Resolution No. 64/93 which prohibited the enrolment of persons above 45 years of age as advocates. This rule, gazetted on 25th September 1993, was challenged as being in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners argued that the rule was inconsistent with Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which lays down the eligibility for enrolment without prescribing any upper age limit.
Law Points Raised
- Whether the Bar Council of India is legally empowered to impose an upper age limit for enrolment.
- Whether such a restriction violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21.
- Whether Rule 9 is ultra vires the Advocates Act, particularly Section 24.
- Can regulatory bodies override statutory provisions with additional restrictions?
- Whether Rule 9 amounts to arbitrary classification violating Article 14.
Acts/Provisions/Articles Referred
- Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21
- Advocates Act, 1961 — Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 24A, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 49
- Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 — Rule 9
- Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 — Section 49
Judgements Referred
The judgment does not cite other specific case precedents directly but extensively interprets provisions from the Advocates Act, Constitution, and previous regulatory practices.
Obiter Dicta
The legal profession has a public utility character and must be guided by ethical and service-oriented conduct. Regulatory bodies must protect the dignity of the profession without overreaching statutory mandates or infringing upon constitutionally protected rights.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that Rule 9 is unconstitutional and ultra vires the Advocates Act. Once a person satisfies the eligibility under Section 24 of the Act, including having a law degree and being 21 years or older, no further conditions like upper age limit can be imposed unless explicitly provided in the statute.
Final Ruling
The Court allowed the writ petition, striking down Rule 9 of the Bar Council of India Rules. It reaffirmed that the right to practice law is statutorily granted upon fulfilling requirements under Section 24, and any extra-legal restriction like age cap is invalid.