Enrolment age bar invalid: delegated rule could not add a new disqualification and failed Article 14 scrutiny.

Rule 9 in Chapter III of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, which excluded enrolment of applicants who had completed 45 years of age, was struck down because the Advocates Act, 1961 did not authorise the creation of such a maximum age disqualification. Section 49 permitted regulation of post-enrolment practice conditions and the class of persons entitled to be enrolled, but not an additional age bar beyond Sections 24 and 24A. The rule was also held arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14 because it singled out one age group without dependable justification, while allowing some persons to continue in practice after crossing that age.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 9 in Chapter III of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, which barred enrolment as an advocate of a person who had completed 45 years of age on the date of application, was within the rule-making power conferred by the Advocates Act, 1961 and whether it was constitutionally valid.

Analysis: The rule operated at the pre-enrolment stage, whereas Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the Bar Council of India to prescribe conditions subject to which an advocate shall have the right to practise after enrolment. Section 49(1)(ag) only permits prescription of the class or category of persons entitled to be enrolled, and does not authorise the creation of a disqualification excluding all persons above a particular age. The Act itself deals with eligibility for enrolment in Section 24 and disqualification in Section 24A, but does not provide for a maximum age bar. The impugned rule, in substance, introduced an additional disqualification beyond the statute and therefore exceeded the delegated rule-making power. It was also held to be discriminatory and arbitrary because it singled out persons over 45 years of age without dependable material to justify the classification, while permitting other persons who had earlier entered the profession and later returned to it after crossing that age to continue practising.

Conclusion: The rule was held to be ultra vires the Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and was struck down.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated rule cannot create a new statutory disqualification for enrolment unless the parent Act clearly authorises it, and a classification excluding an entire age group must satisfy the equality mandate by resting on a rational and non-arbitrary basis.

---