J SAMPATH KUMAR Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of writ petitions involve the constitutional validity of Rule 9 in Chapter III of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules introduced by the Resolution of the Bar Council of India Ms. 64 of 1993 dated 22. 8. 1993 and published in the Gazette of India dated 25. 9. 1993 disentitling a person who has completed the age of 45 years on the date on which he submits his application for his enrolment as Advocate to the State Bar Council.

(2.) COMMON submission have been made by some of the learned counsel, which have been adopted by the others, to which detailed reference will be made at the appropriate stage hereinafter. To have an understanding of the problem, the factual position in some of the writ petitions may be adverted to.

(3.) W. P. No. 21294 of 1993: The petitioner in this writ petition, who was said to have served in the Indian Army for 19 years as wireless Operator and on being relieved in the year 1984, joined the Indian railway Service in 1986 and after working as Senior Clerk in the Commercial branch of the Southern Railway passed, the degree of Bachelor of law in the university of Madras in the year 1991. Since he intended to practice as an advocate he submitted his resignation on 6. 9. 1993 and the resignation was accepted on 29. 9. 1993 with effect from 8. 10. 1993. Thereafter it appears that the petitioner submitted an application for enrolment before the second respondent on 10. 10. 1993 by praying the necessary fee, but by communication dated 29. 11. 1993. the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu appears to have rejected his application. Aggrieved he appreached this Court. While reiterating the contention similar to the one raised in the other writ petitions referred to supra, it is also contended that the rule in question does not come within the rule-making powers conferred in Sec. 49 (l) (ag) or (ah) of the Act.