BCI withdraws upper age limit for 3-yr, 5-yrs LLB admissions; informs Supreme Court
Babushahi Bureau
New Delhi, November 7, 2026: The Bar Council of India (BCI) has withdrawn the upper age restrictions for admission to three-year and five-year Bachelor of Laws (LLB) programmes, informing the Supreme Court of its decision during a hearing on November 6.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was informed about the decision by advocate Radhika Gautam, appearing for the BCI, during the hearing of a petition filed by Rishab Duggal.
The petitioner had challenged a 2016 BCI circular that reinstated Clause 28 of Schedule III of Rule 11 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. The provision prescribed a maximum admission age of 20 years for integrated law degree programmes. It had previously been withdrawn in 2013.
Following the BCI’s announcement, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition as infructuous, observing that the regulatory body had withdrawn the contested age restrictions.
According to the resolution submitted before the court, the BCI General Council reconsidered the issue and concluded that imposing an absolute upper-age limit was not supported by sufficient academic justification.
The Council observed that existing safeguards, including prescribed educational qualifications, attendance requirements, teaching hours, examinations and professional training, were adequate to maintain standards in legal education without excluding otherwise eligible candidates solely because of their age.
The decision followed a reasoned order by former Delhi High Court Chief Justice Rajendra Menon, Co-Chairman of the BCI’s Legal Education Committee, and a resolution of the Standing Committee on Legal Education.
The General Council also took note of an August 2026 Supreme Court order directing the BCI to seek instructions on withdrawing the challenged circular.
During the hearing, advocate Zoheb Hossain, representing the petitioner, requested the court to record the concluding observations of the BCI resolution, particularly its description of the General Council’s decision as conscious and final. He pointed out that the regulatory body had withdrawn the age restriction earlier before reinstating it.
Gautam informed the Bench that the resolution had been passed only a day before the hearing and was therefore not available earlier.
Background of the legal challenge
The petition argued that restricting admission to law courses on the basis of age violated the fundamental rights of aspiring students under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
It also referred to an earlier attempt by the BCI in 1993 to impose a 45-year upper age limit on enrolment as an advocate under Rule 9 of Chapter III, Part VI of the BCI Rules.
That provision was struck down by the Supreme Court in Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice v. Bar Council of India.
The petitioner argued that restricting entry into legal education on age grounds was an even more unreasonable barrier and went against the principles laid down in the earlier Supreme Court judgment.
The challenge had also highlighted conflicting decisions by different High Courts on the validity of the admission-age restriction. While the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Bombay High Court had declared the provision ultra vires the Advocates Act, 1961, the Madras High Court had upheld the age limit.
With the BCI’s latest resolution withdrawing the restrictions, the Supreme Court closed the proceedings.