138-NIA,23,498A,41,Abduction,1,Acquittal,16,Adverse-Possession,5,Advocates,61,Allahabad,3,Andhra-Pradesh,1,Answers,2,Bail,37,Bare-Acts,55,Bombay,17,Calcutta,7,Canada,11,Chhattisgarh,3,Civil-Cases,81,Complaint,2,Constitution,7,Consumer-Forum,7,Conviction,6,Copyright-Patent,3,Corruption,5,Courts,3,Criminal-Cases,291,CrPC,37,Cyber-Laws,7,Defamation,2,Delhi,21,Divorce,25,Dowry,14,Drafting,5,Employment-Laws,4,Events,4,Evidence,11,Execution,7,Famous-Cases,16,Foreign-Visa,6,Free-Legal-Advice,9,G8-Lawyers,8,Gauhati,1,Geek-Upd8,4,Guest-Post,1,Gujarat,4,Health-Laws,9,Heidi-MacDonald,4,High-Court,280,Himachal,1,How-To,19,Immigration,8,India,342,Information-Technology-Act,7,Insurance,8,Inter-State-Association-Lawyers,10,International,7,IPC-1860,4,Jammu-Kahmir,1,Jharkhand,1,Judgments,381,Juvenile,7,Karnataka,1,Kerala,3,Law,343,Law-Degree,12,Legal-Rights,20,Lekh-Raj-Sharma,5,Madhya-Pradesh,3,Madras,4,Manipur,1,Mansa,11,Matrimonial,46,Murder,44,Navneet-Khudania,4,NDPS-Act,16,News-Media,89,Notice,11,NRI,3,Patna,1,Pauper-Suit,1,Personal-Injury-Law,30,Police,13,Politics,13,Popular,10,Privy-Council,1,Public-Interest-Litigation,3,Puneet-Batish,11,Punjab-Haryana,30,Quashing,7,Rajasthan,2,Rape,52,Review,1,RTI,4,Service-Matter,11,Services,1,Sneha-Jaiswal,7,Society,81,Support,142,Supreme-Court,194,Terrorism,7,Theft,3,United-States,3,USA,81,Uttarakhand,2,Videos,5,Women,22,Writ,5,
About: Puneet Batish - ♂ GeekUpd8 Author 
Hello anonymous what happened with your sentiments , you are one of those who are wasting Govts time and money in the name of study, Jindagi se retirement ki age me choga pahanane ki kosis!����
ReplyDeleteThere is technical flaw in the order of the honble supreme court. In the year 2009, the age bar clause of thr BCI was challenged by me in punjab and haryana high court. (CWP NO. 20966 of 2010) which was allowed by the then ACJ Honble mr. Justice M M Kumar. BCI didnt challenge the order and it attained finality. There after BCI formed one man committee to mull over the matter and ultimately on the recommendations of the committee the agr bar clause was finally deleted from the statutes paving ways for persons above the age of 30 to take admission in law. But the constitution of one man committee was challanged in madras high court which petition was allowed and committee was held to be unconstitutional. supreme court so upheld the order of the madras high court and resultantly recommendations of the committee also happened to be unapproved. So the thing to be understood here is that it was the constitution of one man committee which was challanged not the age bar clause. So th3 order passed by thr punjab and haryana high court in the above CWP still holds good. So BCI needs to understand it. If somebody files a review petition into the matter before the supreme court the age bar clause can again be got struck of. Even otherwise age can never be a restriction in attainment of education.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by calling the restoration of age-bar as a step to improve the standard of advocacy? If judges can serve till 60+ years, or advocates till they die, what makes 'elderly' Govt servants unsuited? These 'elderly' people bring tremendous experience and domain expertise with them which people can't gather in a lifetime. These 'elderly' persons pass the entrance exam just like anyone else and join LL.B on their own merit. These 'elderlies' don't compete for your jobs in corporate law firms. Money is not a primary concern. The Supreme Court order that you speak of merely upheld the Madras High Court order citing a procedural impropriety by BCI in waiving the age bar, and not on merits.
ReplyDeleteWell you needn't to stay anonymous to give a commment. This decision is of people far mature than you and me. If government thinks, that a person is not capable to work after a certain age, than why law profession is open for them. And what you said about judges and lawyers serving 60+ is something perhaps, you haven't imagined before writing. Lawyers, Judges serving in legal profession gain so much exposure and expertise that, a retired govt. employees can't get at all even after spending spending rest of their lifetime.
DeleteThen all courses should be open to all age groups, courses like MBBS , engineering etc..
DeleteLiking details given by advocate Sharma.
ReplyDeleteThis challenge is to the method and not to decision. Upon using right method, decision is valid.
The age must not be bar for any studies/profession as it is in direct contravention with fundamental rights.
Learned advocates can correct me please.
Helpful for all advocates, whose age up to 30 years.
ReplyDeleteNo one senior students come to law colleges. By this judgement, junior students can come to law colleges. This is the best judgement after Independence. Thanks to the Honble Supreme Court of India.
ReplyDeleteHas the BCI filed their reply as there is a writ filed against them regards to this issue.
ReplyDeleteFrom grammatic and other linguistic mistakes in the comments, level of intelligence of young law entrants can easily be guaged out. If they are senior lawyers, in that case, they themselves speak of their level.
ReplyDeleteThe matter is now sub judice and pending before various HIgh Courts including High Court of Kerala with BCI on the party array.
ReplyDeleteBCI earlier gave limit of 20 years for 5 years course, and 30 years for 3 years course. After the backlash, it changed limits.... 22 years for 3 years course.... 45 years for 3 years course
ReplyDeleteBCI is still trying to get age limit implemented. One case is going on in Supreme Court --- Rishabh Duggal vs Bar Council Of India. ....... in March 2019 Supreme Court has asked BCI to reconsider this rule