(1.) THE petitioners by these petitions are challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 143-A as framed by the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. Rule 143-A of the Rules which prescribed 45 years as the maximum age for registration as an Advocate, has been challenged on the ground of unreasonableness and being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the constitution of India. It is submitted in the petitions that the Bar Council of madhya Pradesh has no power, authority or jurisdiction to make such a Rule and on the ground that the rule is arbitrary and discriminatory as persons who have crossed the age of 45 years have been debarred from entering the profession simply on the ground that they have crossed the age of 45 years. It is also submitted by the petitioners that Rule 143-A as amended has no nexus with the mental level of a person to act, appear and plead for a client as an Advocate. It is further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice Vs. Bar Council of India and another, 1995 AIR SCW 473, the rule deserves to be declared unconstitutional.
(2.) SHRI Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, has submitted that looking to the present conditions, the standard of education and inflow of people in the profession it was thought fit that some embargo be put at the entry level. It was further submitted that if age limit at the entry level is not fixed then persons after passing Law at any stage may come to join the profession which would not only pollute the system but would contaminate the court proceedings and lower the standard of advocacy. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned Rule framed by the State Bar Council is therefore in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice Vs. Bar Council of India and another (supra ).
(3.) THE impugned rule framed by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh reads in the following terms :