Prof. R.V.

DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SINDIA

UNDER ARTICLE.32 IN THE MATTER OF

WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. OF 2023

SINDIAN COUNCIL FOR LEGAL SERVICE AND

STATE BAR COUNCIL OF THAI NADU ,
MALLUNADU & TULU NADU …………………… PETITIONER

VERSUS
UNION OF SINDIA AND
BAR COUNCIL OF SINDIA …………………….. RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITONER

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SINDIA

 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………… II

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………….…… III

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………….…… IV

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………… V-VI

ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………..……….……… VII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………VIII-IX

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………… 1-15

1. WHETHER THE PETITION IS ADMISSIBLE? 1-5

2. WHETHER THE AMENDMENT AND RULE PERTAINING
TO UNIFORM STANDARDS IN LEGAL EDUATION BY BCS
IS ARBITRARY TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLES AND GUARANTEED RIGHTS 6-10
OF CITIZENS AND NON-CITIZENS?
3. WHETHER THE AMENDMENT AND RULE PERTAINING
TO UNIFORM STANDARDS OF ENROLLMENT IN THE BAR 11-15
VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS AND PRINCIPLES?

PRAYER…………………………………………………………… X

I
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

ASBE All Sindia Bar Exam

BCS Bar Council Of Sindia

Hon’ble Honorable

LLB Legum Baccalaureus

OBC Other Backward Class

Ors. Others

PIL Public Interest Litigation

SC Scheduled Caste

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

ST Scheduled Tribes

UOI Union of India

Vs/ v. Versus

II
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras , 1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88

2. B. Ashok v. Secretary of India, W.P.(MD)No.9533 of 2015,M.P(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2015
3. Balco Employees Union V. U.O.I , W.P. (C) No. 194 of 2001.
4. Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India & others , AIR 1984 802, SCR 1984 (2) 67,
SCC 1984 (3) 161.
5. D.S Nakara v. Union of India , 1983 AIR 130, 1983 SCR (2) 165
6. E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamilnadu , 1974 AIR 555, 1974 SCR (2) 348
7. Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. UOI , AIR 1981 SC 344
8. Francis Coralie Vs Union Territory of Delhi ,1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516
9. Harkchand ratanchand Bantia v Union of India , AIR 1970 SC 14453
10. Himmat Lal vs State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 403
11. Indian Council of Legal Aid vs Bar Council of India , 1995 AIR 691, 1995 SCC (1) 732
12. K.C.Gajapati vs State of Orissa , AIR 1953 Ori 185
13. Kunal singh vs Union Of India & others , Appeal (civil) 1789 of 2000
14. Lokesh Katara v High Court of Gujarat , (2017) 2 SCC 427
15. M. Nagaraj and others vs Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 71
16. M.G Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka , AIR 2001 SC 260
17. Magan Lal Chaggan Lal v Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay AIR 1974 SC 2009
18. Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
19. Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1984 802, SCR 1984 (2) 67, SCC
1984 (3) 161.
20. Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180, (1986) 3 SCC 545
21. Poonam vs Sumit Tanwar AIR 2010 SC 1384.
22. Rajan Sharma versus Bar Council of India CWP No. 20966 of 2010
23. Ramani and Vijay Kumar vs Bar Council of India W.P.No.30751 of 2006 and MP.No.3
of 2006
24. S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India and Another 1981 (Supp) SCC 87
25. Shashikant Laxman Kale vs Union of India AIR (1900) 4 SCC 366
26. Sodan Singh Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee 1989 (4) SCC 155
27. State of Bombay v. FN Balsara 1951 AIR 318, 1951 SCR 682
28. State of Haryana vs P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General Of police and Another1987
AIR 1201, 1987 SCR (2)1030
29. State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952 AIR 75 SC
30. Syndicate Bank v. M/S Manyatha Residents Association WRIT APPEAL
No.2872/2013 (BDA)
31. Union of India Vs Tulsiram Patel 1985 AIR 1416, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 131
32. V. Venkateswaram vs R. S. Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1506.

III
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sindia has the jurisdiction in this matter under Art. 32 of
the Constitution of Sindia which reads as follows:

Article 32- Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III of the
Constituion:

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part
III of the Constitution.

IV
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Union of Sindia is a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic. The nation got
independence in 1947, lawyers and barrister formed a major part of the freedom struggle,
Constitution’s making and post independent governance of the country. The court system
expanded the power and protected the system through the interpretation power.
2. The nation got independence in 1947, lawyers and barrister formed a major part of the
freedom struggle, Constitution’s making and post independent governance of the country.
3. In 1961 the Sindian Parliament brought Sindian Advocates Act which rearranged the legal
Profession in consonance with judicial set up as per the Constitution to facilitate the judiciary
which is embodied a big constitutional responsibility. As per the Act Bar council of Sindia
was created as a statutory authority embodied with prime power and each State having
respective Bar Council in consonance with the jurisdiction of High Court.
4. The national average is 886 non-lawyers per lawyer with 19 per cent growth in lawyer
numbers over five years and 25 % growth expected in next five years. Every month
enrollment happens in Lakhs. In August 2015, Mehta BCS chairman announced that 30% of
lawyers were fake, although the exact number could not “be exactly ascertained by now” and
that the BCS would have final figures within 7 months. He further added that 80000
applications of non-citizen Indian law degree holders are pending with 300 allowed due to
judgment in favor of litigants.
5. Meanwhile in 2021 World Justice index which ranks countries on the standard of
administration of Justice and human rights ranked Sindia as 79th out of 139 countries. As
soon as the minister took over All India conference of Bar council was held wherein the
issues like enrollment rules, disciplinary matter and legal education standards were the prime
agenda.
6. In the valedictory ceremony the PM stated after hearing the outcome of the conference from
the law minister that “the government feels its high time Sindia goes for reform in legal field
for a better nation. If not now, then never when conditions are favourable with more youth”.
7. In November 2022 the Law minister proposed an amendment to Advocates Act Major
amendments are as listed below.
Amended-Sec 2(a) “An advocate is a person who after completion of law graduation and
also after receiving the Certificate of Practice from BCS is enrolled with any State Bar
council in compliance with other provisions of the Act This Provision shall have
overriding effect over all other provision of this Act”.
Inserted-Sec 7-Functions of the Bar Council of Sindia
“e(a) to regulate the ASBE and lay standards of its regulation
e(b) to channelize enrollment of advocates and to establish uniform standards for
enrollment of advocates in Sindia.

V
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

h (a) to regulate the standard of legal education including post graduation in law and
attain uniform legal education standard”
The Amendment Act came into effect on 2nd November 2022. On 2nd January 2023 in
exercise of the power conferred Bar council made landmark changes to Rules as under:-
Rules under Section 7 e (a and b), 7 h(a) ,7 (m) and 49 of the Act
The Bar Council of Sindia made new rules exercising its power under sec 49 the Bar
council made new rules as below
PART IV-Rule pertaining to uniform standard in legal education
Rule 5A-(a)The legal education institutions recognized by BCS shall confer the degree of
law on the basis of citizenship from the 2023-2024 academic year. The legal education
institution shall enroll only Indian citizens in the bachelor programme of law course
regulated by BCS.
(b) the maximum age for Admission shall be 20 years and 25 years for 5 years program
and 3 year program respectively, a 2 years relaxation shall be given for OBC,SC and ST
category.
Part VI -Rule pertaining to uniform standard of enrollment in the Bar and Rule governing
Advocates
Rule 10 1(a) The ASBE shall be held thrice in a year. Annual calendar of ASBE exam for
next year shall be released by November of every year.
Any law graduate within 3 years of completion of the course i.e. receiving the degree shall
be eligible to appear in the ASBE Exam
or any law student pursuing Pre final year or final year Law course shall be eligible to
appear in the ASBE.
State BAR Council shall enroll only a law graduate bearing certificate of Practice as
prescribed above.
8. As soon as the rule was officially published and circulated. Agitation and protest started in
many parts of Sindia. The BCS conducted an immediate meeting and later on Chairman of
the Bar council gave a press release stating that the changes are made in consonance with the
power and limits of the act and to preserve, protect and promote the legal profession which is
the guardian of legal rights to ensure better administration of justice.
9. The law minister stated the purpose of the changes is to revive the legacy of legal profession.
Concentration is on quality than quantity as only qualitative professionals make the
profession qualitative.
10. On January 2023 Sindian Council for Legal Service filed a writ petition before the Supreme
Court of Sindia. The State Bar council of Thai Nadu, Mallunadu and Tulu Nadu filed case on
violating the fundamental right and also interfering with States and State power conferred by
the Constitution and Act in the Supreme Court of Sindia challenging the Amendment and the
notification. The matter is merged and the case is posted for argument with immediate
attention by the Honorable Supreme court of Sindia.

VI
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE PETITION IS ADMISSIBLE?

ISSUE II

WHETHER THE AMENDMENT AND RULE PERTAINING TO UNIFORM

STANDARDS IN LEGAL EDUATION BY BCS IS ARBITRARY TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES AND THE GUARANTEED RIGHT OF
CITIZENS AND NON-CITIZENS?

ISSUE III

WHETHER THE AMENDMENT AND RULES PERTAINING TO UNIFORM

STANDARDS OF ENROLLMENT IN THE BAR VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITS AND PRINCIPLES?

VII
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

WHETHER THE PETITION IS ADMISSIBLE ?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Writ petition (PIL) filed
by Sindian Council for Legal Service and State Bar council of Thai Nadu, Mallunadu and
Tulu Nadu is admissible because Article 32 of the Sindian Constitution provides that “any
person aggrieved of fundamental rights to approach Supreme Court seeking enforcement of
such right recognized by the Constitution”. The Advocates Amendment Act (2022) and the
rule is violative of Article 14, 21, 19(1)(g) and the rules are ultra vires to the provisions of
Section 7 (1)(h) and (l) and 24 (1) (c) , Section 49 (1) (af) ,(ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act.
There is a infringement of fundamental rights and thus it is admissible.

WHETHER THE AMENDMENT AND RULE PERTAINING TO UNIFORM

STANDARDS IN LEGAL EDUATION BY BCS IS ARBITRARY TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES AND GUARANTEED RIGHTS OF
CITIZENS AND NON-CITIZENS?

It is humbly submitted that the Amendments and Rules pertaining to uniform standards in legal
education by BCS is arbitrary to the constitutional principles and guaranteed rights of citizens
and non-citizens .The Amendments and Rules are violative of Article 14 as it introduces
invidious classification. The rules regarding legal education should be made only after the
consultation under Section 7 (h) of the Advocates Act. Since no consultation was made, the rules
are violative of the Parent Act.

VIII
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

WHETHER THE AMENDMENT AND RULE PERTAINING TO

UNIFORM STANDARDS OF ENROLLMENT IN THE BAR VIOLATES
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS AND PRINCIPLES?

It is humbly submitted that Amendment and Rules pertaining to uniform standards of

enrolment in the Bar violates constitutional limits and principles. The Amendments and
Rules violates Article 19 (1) (g) as it is not a reasonable restriction under Article 19 (6) and it
directly violates the Golden Triangle of the Constitution. Additionally, the provision also
violates the Advocates Act,1961.

*************

IX
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

WHETHER THE PETITION IS ADMISSIBLE ?

1. It is most humbly submitted before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of Sindia that the writ
petition filed by the Sindian Council for Legal Service and State Bar Council of Thai Nadu,
Mallunadu and Tulu Nadu is admissible.
2. This petition has been filed to declare the Advocates Amendment Act (2022) is invalid, as it
is against the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Sindia and against the
Constitutional principles.
3. This petition has been filed also to quash the new rules framed by the Bar Council of Sindia
(BCS) on 2nd January 2023 as it is arbitrary to the Advocates Act, 1961 (i.e. its Parent Act)
and violates the constitutional limits.
4. It is submitted that the Union of Sindia is a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic,
Republic. The nation got independence in 1947, lawyers and barrister formed a major part of
the freedom struggle, making of the Constitution and post independent governance of the
country.
5. It is further submitted that as per the 1950 Constitution, the country opted for a single judicial
hierarchy and vested the guardianship of the Constitution with the Court system. The court
system expanded the power and protected the system through the interpretation power.
6. It is submitted that in 1961 the Sindian Parliament brought Sindian Advocates Act which
rearranged the legal profession in consonance with judicial set up as per the Constitution, to
facilitate the judiciary which is embodied with a big constitutional responsibility.
7. It is submitted that Section 5 [1] states that : Every bar council shall be a body corporate
having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to acquire and hold property,
both movable and immovable, and to contract and may be the name by which it is known sue
to be sued. Thus, the Bar Council of Sindia can be sued.
8. It is submitted that in the case of Poonam vs Sumit Tanwar [2] the writ under Article 32 lies
only against a person if it is a statutory body or performs a public function or discharges a
publics or statutory duty or a ‗State‘ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. [3]
Here the Bar Council of Sindia is a statutory body established under Advocates Act, 1961.

1
Section 5 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
2
AIR 2010 SC 1384.
3
The Legal Ethics – Accountability for Lawyers and Bench-Bar Relations by Dr. Kailash Rai, Eleventh
Edition, Central Law Publications at pg no. 343

1
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

9. It is submitted that in the case of Syndicate Bank v. M/S Manyatha Residents

Association [4] the court held that :
―In the case of public interest litigation, the petitioners would have no personal or
individual interest in the subject matter of the petition. It is filed purely in public
interest so as to secure justice for those who cannot approach the Court or in order to
assail an illegal action initiated by the State Government, its agencies or
instrumentalities. In such a case, doctrine of locus standi is relaxed and the same is
for the purpose of bringing to the notice of the High Court or Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution for securing justice, in the realm of enforcement of
fundamental rights, constitutional rights, or other legal ri ghts for the benefit of those
persons who are not in a position to approach the Constitutional Courts and in the
larger interest of the general public‖. [5]
10. In the case of Balco Employees Union Vs U.O.I [6] on 10th December, 2001, the court
observed that the Public Interest Litigation, or PIL (Pro bonon Publico Litigare) as it is more
commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. Public Interest Litigation was
intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz., 'litigation in the
interest of the public'.
While PIL initially was invoked mostly in cases connected with the relief to the people and
the weaker sections of the society and in areas where there was violation of human rights
under Article 21, but with the passage of time, petitions have been entertained in other
spheres. Prof. S.B. Sathe has summarised the extent of the jurisdiction which has now been
exercised in following words:- "PIL may, therefore, be described as satisfying one or more of
the following parameters. These are not exclusive but merely descriptive:

1. Where the concerns underlying a petition are not individualist but are shared widely by a
large number of people (bonded labour, undertrial prisoners, prison inmates).
2. Where the affected persons belong to the disadvantaged sections of society(women,
children, bonded labour, unorganised labour etc.).
3. Where judicial law making is necessary to avoid exploitation(inter-country adoption, the
education of the children of the prostitutes).
4. Where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of the sanctity of democratic
institutions (independence of the judiciary, existence of grievances redressal forums).
5. Where administrative decisions related to development are harmful to the environment
and jeopardize people's to natural resources such as air or water". [7]

4
WRIT APPEAL No.2872/2013 (BDA)
5
Accessed on 13th February 2023 at 10.28 p.m, https://primelegal.in/2021/05/25/the-principle-of-locus-standi-
in-a-pil-must-not-be-applied-to-cases-of-individual-standing-karnataka-high-court/
6
W.P. (C) No. 194 of 2001.
7
Accessed on 02th February, at 2.30 p.m., https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1737583/

2
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

11. What Public Interest Litigation is meant to be has been explained at length in S.P. Gupta vs.
Union of India and Another [8]. While deciding this aspect, this Court examined as to what
is the nature of the Public Interest Litigation and who can initiate the same. At page 215,
Bhagwati J. observed as follows:-"It is for this reason that in public interest litigation
litigation undertaken for the purpose of redressing public injury, enforcing public duty,
protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests or vindicating public interest, any
citizen who is acting bona fide and who has sufficient interest has to be accorded standing.."
12. It is submitted that both Sindian Council for Legal Service and State Bar Council of Thai
Nadu, Mallunadu and Tulu Nadu have locus standi to file this petition.
13. It is submitted that the new amendment and the rules made are in violation of fundamental
rights conferred under Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 of the Sindian Constitution.
14. It is submitted that Article 14 [9] declares that ‗the State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India‘. The words
‗any person‘ in Article 14 of the Constitution denote that the guarantee of equality before the
law is available to any person who includes non-citizens, natural person as well as legal
person.
15. The new rule is arbitrary as it introduces and invidious classification by dividing one class of
student into two artificial and irrational classes by prescribing the maximum age for
admission to law courses.
16. The case Magan Lal Chaggan Lal v Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay [10],
provided needed clarification to the reasonable classification test. Here, the court made a
distinction between the statute which themselves make a classification and those which
authorize the executive to make a classification. The statute will be invalid if it fails to meet
the reasonable classification test.
17. Article 14 applies where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. But
where equals and unequals are treated differently, Article 14 does not apply. Class legislation
is that which makes an improper discrimination by conferring particular privileges upon a
class of persons arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons, all of whom stand in the
same relation to the privilege granted that between whom and the persons not so favoured no
reasonable distinction or substantial difference can be found justifying the inclusion of one
and the exclusion of the other from such privilege.[11]
18. It is submitted that the Article 19(1) (g) [12] guarantees that all citizens shall have the right
―to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business‖. It is submitted
that the new amendment as well as the new rules affects the right to practice as an advocate.
Restriction on the attempt to take ASBE exam after 3 years of completion of course violates
the fundamental right, Article-19 of the Constitution of India.

8
1981 (Supp) SCC 87
9
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950
10
AIR 1974 SC 2009
11
Constitutional Law of India by Dr. J. N. Pandey, 58 th edition, Central Law Agency at pg no : 86
12
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950

3
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

19. It is submitted that the Article 21[13] of the Constitution provides:

―No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law‖.
The right guaranteed in Article 21 is available to ‗citizens‘ as well as ‗non- citizens‘. The
‗right to life and personal liberty‘ includes the right to livelihood.
20. It is submitted that the new rule which introduces an invidious classification by dividing one
class of student into two artificial and irrational classes affects the right to livelihood of vast
majority of person who are barred to practice.
21. Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation [14] judgment in 1985 ruled that eviction of
pavement dwellers using unreasonable force, without giving them a chance to explain is
unconstitutional. It is a violation of their right to livelihood. The Supreme Court observed
that right to livelihood was an ―integral component‖ of the right to life. If the right to
livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to live, the easiest way of
depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to
the point of abrogation.[15]
22. In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India & others [16], the court held that
for violation of fundamental right, anyone can move the Supreme Court for enforcement of
such fundamental right.
23. In the Fertilizer Corporation case [17] & Lokesh Katara v High Court of Gujarat [18], it
was held that Article 32 confers one of the ‗highly cherished rights‘, and that the right of
access to the Supreme Court under Article 32 is a Fundamental Right itself.
24. The existence of an alternative adequate remedy is, however, no bar to the exercise of writ
jurisdiction where the relief is invoked in the case of infringement of fundamental rights,[19]
or where there is complete lack of jurisdiction[20].
25. It is submitted that the states like Mallunadu, Tulunadu, Akalistan, Banglachal, Thai Nadu
stated that Bar Council of Sindia‘s power tends to override the state subject i.e., education.
Thus there is a violation of Article 246 of the Constitution which is about the distribution of
powers between Parliament and State Legislation.
26. It is submitted that the Section 7(1)(h) [21] of the Advocates Act provides the Functions of
Bar Council of Sindia as ―to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such
education in consultation with the universities in India and imparting such education and the
State Bar Councils‖.

13
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
14
AIR 1986 SC 180;(1985) 3 SCC 545
15
Accessed on 8th February 2023 at 11 a.m, https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-
analysis/olga-tellis-case-1985
16
AIR 1984 802, SCR 1984 (2) 67, SCC 1984 (3) 161.
17
AIR 1981 SC 344
18
(2017) 2 SCC 427]
19
Himmat Lal vs State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 403
20
A. V. Venkateswaram vs R. S. Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1506.
21
Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

4
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

27. Therefore, it is submitted that this clause would not arm the Bar Council of India to
incorporate the provisions in the Rules like rule 5A, concerning the age on admission to
LL.B. Course. Likewise, Section-24(1)(c) [22] deals with person who may be admitted as an
Advocate on a State Roll. It has got nothing to do with the age on admission and cannot be
construed to have conferred power on the Bar Council of India to prescribe the maximum age
for the purpose of admission to LL.B. Five years' Course or LL.B., three years' Course.
28. It is submitted that the conditions for right to practice are stated to be made in exercise of
power under Section-49 [23] of the Act. The Section reads as under:-
‗The conditions subject to which an advocate shall have the right to practice and the
circumstances under which a person shall be deemed to practice as an advocate in a court‘.
On the plain language of the said clause (ah) of Section 49, it seems clear to us that under the
said provision the Bar Council of India can lay down the 'conditions' subject to which an
advocate shall have the right to practice. These conditions which the Bar Council of India can
lay down are applicable to an advocate i.e. a person who has already been enrolled as an
advocate by the State Bar Council concerned. The conditions which can be prescribed must
apply at the post-enrolment stage since they are expected to relate to the right to practice.
They can, therefore, not operate at the pre-enrolment stage.
29. It is submitted that the under the said clause conditions applicable to an advocate touching
his right to practice can be laid down and if laid down he must exercise his right subject to
those conditions. But the language of the said clause does not permit laying down of
conditions for entry into the profession. We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the
conclusion that clause (ah) of Section 49(1) of the Act does not empower the Bar Council of
India to frame a rule barring persons to practice as advocate after completion of 3 years from
receiving the law graduation degree. The impugned rule is, therefore, ultra vires the said
provision.
30. It is clear that the provisions of rules are beyond the legislative competence of the Bar
Council of India. The rules ultra vires the provision of Section 7(1)(h) and (l) and 24(1)(c),
Section 49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act.
31. It is submitted that the new Amendment and rules are ultra-virus to the Act and is arbitrary to
Constitution of Sindia and apart it is totally violation of not only fundamental rights but also
violation of principles of natural justice.
32. Thus it is humbly submitted that the petition filed by the Sindian Council for Legal Service
and State Bar Council of Thai Nadu, Mallunadu and Tulu Nadu is admissible.

22
Section-24(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
23
Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

5
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

WHETHER THE AMENDMENT AND RULE PERTAINING TO UNIFORM

STANDARDS IN LEGAL EDUATION BY BCS IS ARBITRARY TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES AND THE GUARANTEED RIGHTS OF
CITIZENS AND NON-CITIZENS?

1. It is most humbly submitted before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of Sindia that the
Amendment and the Rule pertaining to uniform standards in legal education by BCS is
arbitrary to the Constitutional Principles & the guaranteed rights of citizens and non-citizens.
2. It is submitted that the Union of Sindia is a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic.
Therefore there exists division of power between Union and the State. The power of Central
and the State have been categorized into 3 lists under the seventh schedule of the
Constitution of Sindia.
3. It is clear that both Union and State has power to make laws related to the subject mentioned
in concurrent list (education) which is in List III of the Constitution of Sindia (Concurrent
List). But the States like Mallunadu, Tulunadu, Akalistan, Banglachal, Thainadu, stated that
Bar council power tends to override the state‘s power on the subject of education.
4. Article 246 [24] is related to subject-matters of law making power of Parliament and State
Legislatures. This Article is as follows:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in clause (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to
make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the 7th Schedule.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament, and, subject to clause (1), the
Legislation of any State also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in List III in 7th Schedule.
(3) Subject to clause (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to
make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in List II in the 7th Schedule.
5. It is submitted that both union and state has considerable powers on the subject mentioned in
the concurrent list. It means state also has considerable power over education as the subject
falls on List III and the Council‘.
6. It is submitted that Article 14 [25] declares that ‗the State shall not deny to any person `
equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India‘.
7. In the case M.G Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka [26] the court held that the right to
equality is a basic feature of the Constitution. It means that neither any constitutional
amendments nor Parliament or State legislature can transgress the fundamental right. If there

24
Article 246 of the Constitution of India,1950
25
Article 14 of the Constitution of India
26
AIR 2001 SC 260

6
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

is a violation of the right to equality then it will be considered a violation of the basic
structure of the Constitution.
8. The Constitution of India embodies certain basic principles which form the foundations of
democratic government of India. A careful study of the Constitution will show that there are
atleast eight such basic principles. These are: (1) Popular Sovereignty, (2) Fundamental
Rights, (3) Directive Principles of State Policy, (4) Socialism, (5) Secularism, (6) Judicial
Independence, (7) Federalism and (8) Cabinet Government.[27]
9. In E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamilnadu [28] propounded a new approach to Article 14 as:
Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be ―cribbed,
cabined and confined‖ within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of
view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn
enemies; one belongs to rule of law in a republic while the other to the whim and caprice of
an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it unequal both according to
political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14.[29]
10. It is submitted that a legislative classification to be valid must be reasonable. In order to pass
the test for permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled [30], namely
 The classification must be founded on an intelligible differtia which distinguish
person or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group
 The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved
by the statute in question.[31]
11. The new rule is arbitrary as it introduces an invidious classification by dividing one class of
student into two artificial and irrational classes by prescribing the maximum age for
admission to law courses.
12. In the case Shashikant Laxman Kale vs Union of India [32] the Supreme Court elucidate the
scope of permissible classification as: ―the court must look beyond the ostensible
classification and to the purpose of the law and apply the test of ―palpable arbitrariness‖ in
the context of the felt needs of the times and societal exigencies informed by experience to
determine reasonableness of classification.
13. In the case State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar [33], the Supreme Court invalidated
the Act because it conferred arbitrary powers in the government to classify offences or
classes of offences at its pleasure. The Act did not lay down any policy/guideline for
classification of such offences. As a result of the provision, different treatment was granted to
the appellant. This case was one of the initial cases to lay down the foundational principles of
Article 14.
27
Accessed on 23th February,2023,https://www.competitionreview.in/blogs/2021/03/16/basic-principles-of-the-
constitution/#:~:text=are%3A%20(1)%20Popular%20Sovereignty,of%20each%20of%20these%20principles
.&text=India%20is%20a%20Sovereign%20Democratic%20Republic.
28
1974 AIR 555, 1974 SCR (2) 348
29
Constitutional Law of India by Dr. J. N. Pandey, 58 th edition, Central Law Agency at pg no : 89
30
Bhuddan Chaudhary vs State of Bihar, 1955 AIR 191, 1955 SCR (1)1045
31
V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India by Mahendra Pal Singh,Twelfth Edition, Eastern Book Company at pg
no. 51
32
AIR (1900) 4 SCC 366
33
1952 AIR 75 SC

7
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

14. In the case M. Nagaraj and others vs Union of India [34], it is urgued that equality in the
Constitution conceives the individual right to be treated fairly without discrimination in the
matter of equality of opportunity and it is also submitted that if the structural balance of
equality in the light of the efficiency is disturbed and if the individual right is encroached
upon by excessive support for group expectations, it would amount to discrimination. So,
Right to equality play a major role among the other rights for both citizens and non-citizens.
15. Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. Equality & arbitrariness are sworn enemies. Therefore,
where an act is arbitrary, it is considered as unequal and hence, a violation of Article 14.
Article 14 strikes arbitrariness in state action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment.
16. It is submitted that in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India [35] and more clearly in
case of Union of India Vs Tulsiram Patel [36], the court held that article 14 requires the
observance of the principles of natural justice, including the requirement of reasoned
decisions. Since then it has reiterated and applied that proportion in number of cases.
17. In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India[37] case, quoting himself from the E.P Royappa case
Bhagwati J very clearly read the principals of reasonableness in Article 14. He said Article
14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The
principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element
of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence.
18. It is submitted that the new rules are framed by BCS in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 7 e (a and b), 7 h (a), 7 (m) and 49 of the Advocates Act.
19. The Section 7(1)(h) [38] states that the function of Bar Council of Sindia is ‗to promote legal
education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities
in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils‘.
20. The Bar Council of Sindia had made the new rules without any consultation or negotiation
with State Bar Council or any University due to which there was protests and agitation all
over Sindia. Thus the rules made by BCS has clearly violated the Section 7(1)(h) of the
Advocates Act.
21. It is submitted that the new Rule 5A-(a) in Part IV [39] states that the legal education
institutions recognized by BCS shall confer the degree of law on the basic of citizenship from
the 2023-2024 academic year. The legal education institution shall enroll only Indian citizens
in the bachelor programme of law course regulated by BCS.
22. It is submitted that the non-citizen right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of
Sindia have been clearly violated since only Indian citizens are allowed to proceed with the
law profession and there is no clarity whether the non-citizens in bachelor programme before
these amendments can proceed the law course in Sindia.

34
AIR 2007 SC 71
35
1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
36
1985 AIR 1416, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 131
37
1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
38
Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961
39
Part IV – Rule pertaining to uniform standard in legal education.

8
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

23. It is submitted that the rule regarding recognition of degree on the basis of citizenship has not
given clarity whether the citizenship is Sindian citizenship or any other citizenship. As per
the unspecified rule, any citizenship is accepted. Therefore the rules framed Bar Council of
Sindia is against the persons with no citizenship that is the refugees.
24. In the whole world though there is a number of conventions on law governing refugees. The
refugees are still facing problems. When some countries have not taken a refugee law we can
understand Sindia have the same face and all the countries are on the same boat. Although
Sindia has not signed the refugees convention but it is providing protection to the refugees.
25. It is submitted that the procedure for determining refugees is still lacking since Sindia has no
uniform code for determining refugee status. Thus, there is no Central body that deals with
the refugees. So it is more clear that the rights of all the refugees under rule 5A (a) has
violated the right to equality under article 14 which is common right for not only citizens and
non-citizens but also refugees.
26. It is submitted that the new rule 5A (b) in Part IV [40] states that the maximum age for
admission shall be 20 years and 25 years for 5 years program and 3 year program
respectively, a 2 years relaxation shall be given for OBC, SC and ST category.
27. The case Rajan Sharma versus Bar Council of India [41] clearly says that bar council of
Sindia do not have powers to incorporate a provision concerning the maximum age for
admission to LLB course. The matter has been discussed in detail in the Indian council of
legal aid case.
28. It is submitted that the law minister stated that the concentration is on quality than quantity as
only qualitative professionals make the profession qualitative. But the qualitative
professionals can be of any age. The fixing of age criteria should not be taken to judge the
quality of the person. And the knowledge of the person should be considered as the tool to
judge the quality of person. Bar Council of Sindia could have increased the maximum marks
required for the admission of course than that of imposing the age restriction which is
complete violation of the right to equality of citizens and non-citizen in Sindia.
29. The Bar Council of Sindia is not competent to frame rules, exercising the power conferred
under Section 49 [42], regarding the age restriction in the admission. The Section 49(ah) reads
as under:-
‗The conditions subject to which an advocate shall have the right to practice and the
circumstances under which a person shall be deemed to practice as an advocate in a
court‘.
30. It is submitted that the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Ashok versus Secretary of
India[43] held that the rule which operates at pre enrollment stage cannot receive the shelter of
clause (ah) section 49 of the Advocate Act.

40
Part IV – Rule pertaining to uniform standard in legal education.
41
CWP No. 20966 of 2010
42
Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
43
W.P.(MD)No.9533 of 2015,M.P(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2015

9
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

31. So BCS has got nothing to do with the age on admission and cannot be construed to have
power to prescribe the maximum age for the purpose of admission of bachelors program of 5
years course or 3 years course.
32. It is submitted the rule 5A (b) deciding with the age on admission occurring in part IV which
have been framed by BCS under section 7 (a and b), 7 (h)(a), 7 (m) and 49 of the act is
completely arbitrary.
33. Therefore the rules under part IV are beyond the legislative competence of the bar council of
Sindia. Rule 5A is ultra-virus the provisions of section 7(1)(h), 7(h)(a) and 49(ah), 49(af) of
the Advocates Act.
34. It is submitted that the Doctrine of Severability derives its validity from Article 13 which
states,
―All laws in force in India, before the commencement of the Constitution, in so far as
they are inconsistent with the provisions of fundamental rights shall to the extent of that
inconsistency be void.‖
35. As an extension of Article 13, the doctrine of severability states that when some particular
provision of the statute infringes or violates the fundamental rights, but the provision is
severable from the rest of the statute, and then only that provision will be declared void by
the courts and not the entire statute. The doctrine essentially lays down that if violative and
non-violative provisions are separated in a way that the non-violative provision can exist
without the violative provision, then the non-violative provision will be upheld as valid and
enforceable.
36. In A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras[44], the Court found Section 14 of the Preventive
Detention Act to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court added that striking
down Section 14 will not change the object of the Act and thus only the impugned provision
will be struck down and not the act as a whole. A similar observation was made in D.S
Nakara v. Union of India.[45]
37. In State of Bombay v. FN Balsara[46], it was held that the violative provisions of the
Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, do not affect the validity of the entire Act and thus there was
no need to invalidate the statute altogether.
38. These cases are squarely applicable to our case therefore Doctrine of Severability can be
applied here since the amendment and rules clearly violates the fundamental rights of both
citizens and non-citizens.
39. Thus the Amendment and the Rule pertaining to uniform standards in legal education by
BCS is completely arbitrary to the Constitutional Principles and the guaranteed rights of
citizens and non-citizens.

44
1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88
45
1983 AIR 130, 1983 SCR (2) 165
46
1951 AIR 318, 1951 SCR 682

10
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

WHETHER THE AMENDMENT AND RULE PERTAINING TO UNIFORM

STANDARDS OF ENROLLMENT IN THE BAR VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITS AND PRINCIPLES?

1. It is most humbly submitted before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of Sindia that the
Amendment and the Rule pertaining to uniform standards of enrollment in the Bar violates
Constitutional limits and principles.
2. It is submitted that the Union of Sindia is a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic.
In 1961 the Sindian Parliament brought Sindian Advocates Act which rearranged the legal
profession in consonance with judicial set up as per the Constitution, to facilitate the
judiciary which is embodied with a big constitutional responsibility.
3. It is submitted that in November 2022 the Law Minister proposed an amendment to Advocate
Act. On 2nd January 2023 in exercise of the power conferred Bar Council made changes to
rules. As soon as the rule was officially published and circulated, agitation and protest started
in many parts of Sindia.
4. Article 19(1)(g) [47] guarantees all the citizens shall have the right ‗to practice any
profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business‘.
5. Article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution guarantees that all citizens have the right to practice any
profession of to carry on any occupation or trade or business. In Sodan Singh Vs. New Delhi
Municipal Committee [48] Kuldeep Singh J define the expressions in article 19 (1) (g) as
follows:
‗Profession‘ means an occupation carried on by a person by virtue of his personal and
specialised qualifications, training or skill.
The word ‗occupation‘ has a wide meaning such as any regular work, profession, job,
principal activity, employment, business or a calling in which an individual is engaged.
‗Trade‘ in its wider sense includes any bargain or sale, any occupation or business carried
on for subsistence or profit, it is an act of buying and selling of goods and services.
6. With respect to the ambit of reasonable restrictions, the Supreme Court in Chintaman Rao v
State of Madhya Pradesh had laid down the principle that the legislative view of what
constitutes reasonable restriction shall not be conclusive and final and that it shall be
subjected to supervision by the Supreme Court.
7. In the case Harkchand ratanchand Bantia v Union of India [49], the court observed that the
test of reasonableness shall be on the basis of the following grounds; “The nature of the right
alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent

47
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India,1950
48
1989 (4) SCC 155
49
AIR 1970 SC 14453

11
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition,
the prevailing conditions at the time”.
8. It is submitted that according to the Amendment in Section 2(a) – An Advocate is a person
who after completion of law graduation and also after receiving the Certificate of Practice
from BCS is enrolled with any State Bar Council in compliance with other provisions of the
Act.
This provision shall have overriding effect over all other provision of this Act.
9. So a person is considered to be an Advocate not only after completion of law graduation but
also after receiving Certificate of Practice from BCS and the person is enrolled in State Bar
Council. Here the Certificate of practice is obtained only after the completion of ASBE. So it
is clear that ASBE is made compulsory in the enrollment process of the Advocate.
10. It is submitted that the new amendment as well as the new rules affects the right to practice
as an advocate. Restriction on the attempt to take ASBE exam after 3 years of completion of
course violates the fundamental right, Article-19 of the Constitution of India.
11. It is submitted that the new rules are framed by BCS in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 7 e (a and b), 7 h (a), 7 (m) and 49 of the Advocates Act.
12. It is submitted that the Rule 10(1)(a) in Part VI [50] states that :
The ASBE shall be held thrice in a year. Annual calendar of ASBE exam for next year
shall be released by November of every year.
Any law graduate within 3 years of completion of the course i.e. receiving the degree shall
be eligible to appear in the ASBE Exam.
(or) any law student pursuing Pre-final year or final year law course shall be eligible to
appear in the ASBE.
State Bar Council shall enroll only a law graduate bearing certificate of Practice as
prescribed above.
13. It is submitted that the rule 10(1)(a) which provides that ASBE should be cleared within 3
years of completion of the course. So this rule clearly violates Article 19(1)(g) which
guarantees the Rights to Profession.
14. So it is clear that even after completion of law graduation i.e., completion of 10 solid
Semesters without arrears a person cannot be enrolled as an advocate and also the person
who have completed the law graduation and have not enrolled for more than 3 years for
several reasons cannot be eligible for the AIBE exam which will directly affect him from
obtaining the Certificate of Practice to enroll himself as an advocate.
15. Relying on the case Indian Council of Legal Aid vs Bar Council of India [51] which was
about challenging the rules of BCS and it was held that every person even if qualified but has
completed 45 years of age is debarred for all times from enrollment as an Advocate. It is
clearly said in the case that the inserted rule was discriminatory as it debars one group of
persons who have crossed the age of 45 years from enrollment while allowing another group

50
Part VI - Rule pertaining to uniform standard of enrolment in the Bar and Rule governing Advocates
51
1995 AIR 691, 1995 SCC (1) 732

12
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

to revive and continue practice even after 45 years and also said that the rule was clearly
unreasonable, arbitrary as the choice of 45 years is made keeping only a certain group in
mind ignoring the rest majority of other persons who were in the service of Government (or)
quasi – government or similar institution at any point of time.[52]
16. Here the time restriction of 3 years for ASBE exam and the compulsion of Certificate of
Practice for the enrollment clearly ignores a majority of other persons who were in the
service of government or quasi – government or similar institution (or) the person who have
not yet enrolled as an advocate but has a law degree from a recognized institutions. Thus the
impugned rule are completely discriminatory since it categories people according to the age
of the person.
17. In the case of Ramani and Vijay Kumar vs Bar Council of Sindia [53], the judgment made
it is clear that the fixation of upper age limit in enrolling in the Bar is construed to be
unreasonable.[54]
18. Also while comparing the rules 10(a) we can see that due to the age restriction in the
bachelor program of law course and the limited attempts in the ASBE exam, the rules thus
directly gives priority to youth and indirectly affects the all the other people.

LAW COURSE ADMISSION (Max age) ENROLLMENT (Max age)

5 YEAR ( bachelors)
3 YEAR (bachelors)
( As per Estimation )
General - 20 years 28 years
OBC , SC , ST - 22 years 30 years
( age relaxation)
General - 30 years 31 years
OBC , SC , ST – 28 years 33 years
(age relaxation )

19. It is submitted that the Section 24(1)(c) provides that the Persons who may be admitted as
advocates on a State roll he has obtained a degree in law—
(i) before the [12th day of March, 1967], from any University in the territory of India; or
(ii) before the 15th day of August, 1947, from any University in any area which was
comprised before that date within India as defined by the Government of India Act,1935;
(iii) after the 12th day of March, 1967, save as provided in sub-clause (iiia),after
undergoing a three-year course of study in law from any University in India which is
recognized for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India; or
(iiia) after undergoing a course of study in law, the duration of which is not less than two
academic years commencing from the academic year 1967-68 or any earlier academic year
from any University in India which is recognised for the purposes of this Act by the Bar
Council of India; or

52
Accessed on 3th February,2023, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1542937/
53
W.P.No.30751 of 2006 and MP.No.3 of 2006
54
Accessed on 13th February,2023,https://www.latestlaws.com/judgements/madras-high-court/2022/july/2022-
latest-caselaw-12588-mad

13
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

(iv) in any other case, from any University outside the territory of India, if the degree is
recognised for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India.[55]
20. It is submitted that the Advocates Act under Section 24 have no restriction on law degree
obtained since 1935. But the new rule made by BCS only recognized the law degree obtained
within 3 years so as required for enrollment as an Advocates. Thus the new rule indirectly
violates the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.
21. It is submitted that the legal maxim- ―Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et
per obliquum‖ means which is prohibited directly is also prohibited indirectly.[56]
22. The above legal maxim first came in the landmark judgement in the case of K.C.Gajapati
Narayan Deo vs State of Orissa [57] where the court held that ‗which implies that whatever
is prohibited directly is prohibited indirectly‘.
23. In Indian council of legal aid and advice and others vs Bar Council of India and others,
the Supreme Court has held that bar council of Sindia cannot debar persons from enrollment
as an Advocate who are above the age of 45 years. So the BCS has made rules debarring
certain person not directly (as it could be against the SC orders) but indirectly by fixing age
limit in law course admission and also by restricting the maximum time limit to 3 years
within the completion of the law course for clearing the ASBE exams so as to restrict the
peoples to enroll as an Advocate.
24. In Kunal singh vs Union Of India & others [58] and also in State of Haryana vs P.C.
Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General Of police and Another [59] the Hon‘ble Supreme Court
said that the Rules cannot override the provisions of the Act. But, in the Part VI, Rule 10 (1)
(a) framed by BCS says that “Any rule whether made Prior or after shall stand void if
inconsistent with this rule”. So, it clearly violates Section 7e (a) which provides the BCI to
regulate the ASBE and lay down the standards of its regulation. Since it restricts the BCI to
make rules which is inconsistent to this rule therefore the rule overrides the provision 7e (a)
of the Advocates Act.[60]
25. It is submitted that the Article 21[61] of the Constitution provides:
―No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law‖.
The right guaranteed in Article 21 is available to ‗citizens‘ as well as ‗non- citizens‘. The
‗right to life and personal liberty‘ includes the right to livelihood.

55
Legal Ethics – Accountability for Lawyers and Bench-Bar Relations by Dr. Kailash Rai, Eleventh Edition,
Central Law Publications at pg no. 399&400
56
Accessed on 8th February,2023, https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-of-colourable-legislation-an-impediment-
to-the-legislative-authority/ - Colourable_legislation
57
AIR 1953 Ori 185
58
Appeal (civil) 1789 of 2000
59
1987 AIR 1201, 1987 SCR (2)1030
60
Accessed on 19th February 2023 at 3.00p.m.,
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ade8e4b014971141283b
61
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950

14
 Prof. R.V. DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

26. In the Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation [62], the Supreme Court observed
that:
―It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example,
by the imposition and execution of death sentence, except according to the procedure
established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equal important facet of
that right is the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of
livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to
life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of
his means of livelihood. In view of the fact that Article 39(a) and 41 requires the State to
secure to the citizen an adequate means of livelihood and the right to work, it would be
sheer pendentary to exclude the right to livelihood from the content of the right to
life‖.[63]
27. It is submitted that in the case of Francis Coralie Vs Union Territory of Delhi [64], the
Supreme Court observed that ― the right to live includes the right to live with human dignity
and all that goes along with it, viz., the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition,
clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in
diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings and
must include the right to basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on functions and
activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of human self.
28. It is submitted that according to the Rule 10(a) if a person is unable to complete the ASBE
exam within 3 years of completion of graduation, the person cannot practice as an Advocate
and also the degree of law is of no value. Thus the interest of the persons who are barred as
per this rule is affected as they cannot proceed with the noble law profession. As they cannot
be enrolled as an Advocate and due to this impugned rule they have no means of income to
live therefore right to livelihood is clearly violated.
29. It is submitted that the Articles 14, 19, and 21 are known as the Golden Triangle because
they are regarded as the fundamental principles for the country‘s smooth operation. The
Golden Triangle shields citizens from any violation of their rights. The case of Maneka
Gandhi vs. Union of India paved the path for the development of the Golden Triangle.
30. Thus the Amendment and the Rule pertaining to uniform standards of enrollment in the Bar
clearly violates Constitutional limits and principles.

62
AIR 1986 SC 180, (1986) 3 SCC 545
63
Constitutional Law of India by Dr. J. N. Pandey, 58th edition, Central Law Agency at pg no : 288
64
1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516

15
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to :

1. Declare the Writ petition (PIL) filed by Sindian Council for Legal Service and State

Bar council of Thai Nadu, Mallunadu and Tulu Nadu against the Union Of Sindia and

Bar Council Of Sindia is admissible.

2. Declare the Amendment and Rule pertaining to uniform standards in legal education by

BCS is arbitrary to the constitutional principles and against the guaranteed rights of

citizens and non-citizens.

3. Declare the amendment and rule pertaining to uniform standards of enrollment in the

bar violates constitutional limits and principles.

AND PASS ANY SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE
INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL, AS IN DUTY BOUND
EVER PRAY.

ALL OF WHICH IS HUMBLY PRAYED,

-(P)

COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER