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 RESPONDENT

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. Attorney general for India Vs. Amratlal Prajivandas, (1994)

2. Bar Council of India vs High Court of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 2227
3. Bar council of India vs. Bonnie Foi law college, (2023)
4. Bhuddan Chaudhary vs State of Bihar, 1955 AIR 191, 1955 SCR (1)1045
5. Chintaman Rao v State of Madhya Pradesh, 1951 AIR 118, 1950 SCR 759
6. Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, 1996 AIR 1708, 1996 SCC
(3) 342
7. Express Newspapers v Union of India, 1985 1 SCC 641
8. Inamdar vahat Vs. Symbosis Society's Law College, AIR 1984 Bombay 451
9. Jayesh Hema chandra Belsare Vs. Registrar, BhavaNagar University, (1986) 1 GLR 604
10. Kanubhai Brahmbhatt v State of Gujarat, 1987 AIR 1159, 1987 SCR (2) 314
11. M. Radhakrishnan vs The Secretary, The Bar Council Of India, AIR 2007 Mad 108, 2006
(5) CTC 705
12. PN Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation Delhi, 1988 SCR (1) 732, 1987 SCC (4) 609
13. Preeti Srinvastava (Dr) vs. State of Madya Pradesh, Writ Petition (civil) 290 of 1997
14. R.K.Anand Vs. Registrar, 2009(6) SCJ 465
15. Satish Chandra v.Registrar of Cooperative Societies, 1994 81 CompCas 482 SC, JT 1994
(3) SC 620, 1994 (2) SCALE 829, (1994) 4 SCC 332, 1994 3 SCR 618, 1994 (2) UJ 280
SC
16. Satish Kumar vs Bar Council of H.P., Appeal (civil) 5395 of 1997
17. Sodan Singh Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1989 SC 1988
18. Union of India v. T R Vermaii, AIR 1957 SC 882
19. Veterinary Council of India vs. Indian Council of Agriculture Research, 2000 (1) SCC
750

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. Sindia has more than
50% of its population below the age of 25 and more than 65% below the age of 35. In 2020,
the average age of a Sindian was 29 years.
2. The Sindian Bar Councils Act, 1926 , a Britanian law governed legal profession till 1961.
The Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers 1990 was signed by Sindia in 2020.
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. The legal profession has its share of issues like fake lawyer,
strike, disciplinary, enrollment issues. In August 2015, Mehta BCS chairman announced that
30% of lawyers were fake.
5. The law minister held legal reform shall be the prime aim of the government. The law
minister promised to meet the problems of Bar and Bench. Accordingly the vacancy in the
Supreme court was filled in September 2022 and the strength was improved.
6. 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.
7. 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”.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 not admissible. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition. The amendments

brought by parliament and the rules by BCS in Advocates Act is neither violative of

fundamental rights nor ultravires of the Advocates Act. Since, there is no violation of

Fundamental rights under Part III, the writ petition is not 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 not arbitrary to the constitutional principles and guaranteed rights of

citizens and non-citizens . The Union of Sindia has power to make laws regarding education in

Sindia under Article 246. The Amendments and rules regarding education is not violative of

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

right to equality since it passes the tests under Article 14. This changes was made to improve

the quality of Legal education by restricting admission of several persons since only qualitative

persons make the profession qualitative.

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 does not violates exceeding constitutional limits and principles. Due to the increasing

issues in the Legal profession the Amendment was made in to improve the quality of Legal

profession and it does not violate Article 19 (1) (g) since it is a reasonable restriction under

19(6). The Rules were made by the Bar council of Sindia exercising the power under Advocates

(amendment) Act 2022, purposely to improve the Noble legal profession.

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

IX
 ARGUMENTS ADAVNCED

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 not admissible.
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 a big constitutional responsibility.
3. It is submitted that 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. It is submitted that the BCS conducted an immediate meeting as soon as the agitation and
protest started and later on the 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.
5. It is submitted that the Bar Council made the changes to preserve, protect and promote the
legal profession which is the guardian of legal rights to ensure better administration of
justice.
6. It is submitted that while filing a writ petition, the petitioner must clearly establish his
locus standi in that particular case. In the absence of any right of the petitioners being
violated, such petitioners would not be persons aggrieved. Then, they have no locus to
file a writ petition under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution in their personal or
individual capacity. [1]
7. It is submitted that the petitioner i.e., Sindian Council for Legal Service has no locus standi
to file the petition before this court. The Sindian Council for Legal Service is a not an
aggrieved party.
8. It is submitted that the PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially meant
to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure which
was innovated where a public spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such
persons who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could

1
Accessed on 13th February 2023 at 10.40 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/

1
 not approach the Court for relief. There have been, in recent times, increasingly instances of
abuse of PIL.
9. The petition is not a Public Interest Litgation but just a Public Stunt Litigation. It is only a
pre-mature case which is not maintainable.
10. It is submitted that Article 14 [2] 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‟.
11. It is submitted that the Article 21[3] provides that “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.
12. In the case of Sodan Singh Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee [4], a 5 judge bench of the
Supreme Court held that the right to carry on any trade or business is not included in the
concept of life and personal liberty. Article 21 is not attracted in the case of trade and
business.
13. The restriction imposed by the newly added rule is to serve a public purpose and can never
be termed as unreasonable, violative of article 14 of the constitution. Since the upper age
limit has been fixed to save the legal profession from decay and deterioration , it is contents
the bar council difficult to comprehend how it can be said to be inconsistent with article 21 .
The prescription of the higher age limit does not violate section 24 of the act , since section
49 permits classification and categorization.
14. It is submitted that Article 253 [5] empowers the Parliament to make any law for the whole or
any part of the territory of Sindia for implementing treaties and international agreements and
conventions. The Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers 1990 was signed by Sindia in
2020.
15. The Article 10 [6] states that “Governments, professional associations of lawyers and
educational institutions shall ensure that there is no discrimination against a person with
respect to entry into or continued practice within the legal profession on the grounds of
race, colour, sex, ethnic origin, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, property, birth, economic or other status, except that a requirement, that a lawyer
must be a national of the country concerned, shall not be considered discriminatory”[7].
16. In clear words, Article 253 states the Parliament‟s power to legislate for giving effect to
treaties and international agreements where the normal distribution of powers will not stand
in the way of Parliament to pass a law for giving effect to international obligations even
though such law relates to any of the subject in the State List.[8]

2
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950
3
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
4
AIR 1989 SC 1988
5
Article 253 of the Constitution of Sindia, 1950
6
Article 10 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers 1990
7
Accessed on 4th February at 11.45 a.m., https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-
mechanisms/instruments/basic-principles-role-lawyers
8
Constitutional Law of India by Dr. J. N. Pandey, 58 th edition, Central Law Agency at pg no : 720

2
17. It is submitted that the Article 19(1) (g) [9] guarantees that all citizens shall have the right “to
practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business”.
18. It is submitted that under clause (6) of the Article 19, the State can make any law –
 Imposing reasonable restriction on this right „in the interest of public‟.
 Prescribing profession or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any
carrying on any occupation, trade or business
 Enabling the State to carry on any trade or business to the exclusion of citizens
wholly or partially.
19. In Chintaman Rao v State of Madhya Pradesh[10], the Supreme Court opined that a
restriction in order to be referred to as reasonable shall not be arbitrary and shall not be
beyond what is required in the interest of the public. The reasonable implies intelligent care
and deliberation Legislation which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said
to contain the quality of reasonableness and unless it strikes a proper balance between the
freedom guaranteed.
20. It is submitted that the Section 49(1)(ah)[11] states that the Bar Council of Sindia may make
rules for discharging its functions under this Act, and, in particular, such rules may prescribe
the conditions subject to which an advocate shall have the right to practise and the
circumstances under which a person shall be deemed to practise as an advocate in a court.
21. It is submitted that in the case of Bar Council of India vs High Court of Kerala [12] the
Supreme Court held that an advocate does not have absolute right to practice. It is not a
fundamental right but a statutory right which is subject to conditions which must be complied
with. The rule made by BCS does not violate the principles of natural justice. It may only in
certain situations be read into Article 14 of the Constitution when an order is made in
violation of the rule of natural justice. The applicability of Principle of Natural Justice may
be subject to the provision of a statute or statutory rule.
22. 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. Thus it is clear that rule
framed by the Bar Council of Sindia is not arbitrary to the Advocates Act i.e., its Parent Act.
23. Section 48 [13] may be read as “Indemnity against legal proceedings - No suit or other legal
proceeding shall lie against any Bar Council or any committee thereof or a member of a Bar
Council for any act in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of the provisions
of this Act or of any rules made thereunder”.
24. Thus the Advocates Act clearly states that no suit or legal proceeding shall lie against the Bar
Council of Sindia. The bar council of Sindia contents that it has acted bonafide within the
framework of the Parent Act and the Constitution of Sindia.

9
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950
10
1951 AIR 118, 1950 SCR 759
11
Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961
12
AIR 2004 SC 2227
13
Section 48 of the Advocates Act, 1961

3
25. In the case PN Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation Delhi[14] (PG NO 3 PARA- 2) the held
that We are of the view that this petition should be disposed of without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case reserving liberty to the petitioners to file a petition, if so
advised, before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. We accordingly
dispose of this petition for the following reasons:
1. The scope of the powers of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is
wider than the scope of the powers of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
2. The relief prayed for in the petition is one which may be granted by the High Court and
any of the parties who is dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court can approach
this Court by way of an appeal. The fact that some case involving the very same point of
law is pending in this Court is no ground to entertain a petition directly by-passing the
High Court.
3. If the parties get relief at the High Court, they need not come here and to that extent the
burden on this Court is reduced.
26. In the case Kanubhai Brahmbhatt v State of Gujarat[15] a division bench of the Supreme
Court observed that a petitioner complaining of infraction of his Fundamental Right should
approach the High Court first rather than the Supreme Court in the first instance, the reason
for such an observation as given was that there was a huge backlog of cases pending before
the Supreme Court.
27. In Satish Chandra v.Registrar of Cooperative Societies[16], the remedy under Article 226
was specifically stated as the alternative remedy, and the petition under Article 32 was
consequently dismissed.
28. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. T R Vermaii[17] held that “it is well settled that
when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be
required to pursue that remedy and not to invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to
issue a prerogative writ”. The Court further stated that “when such remedy exists, it will be a
sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226, unless there
are good grounds, therefore”.
29. Section 7(1)(f)[18] states that the functions of the Bar Council of Sindia shall be to deal with
and dispose of any matter arising under this Act, which may be referred to it by a State Bar
Council.
30. Section 10[19] states that “Constitution of committees other than disciplinary committees―
(2) The Bar Council of India shall constitute the following standing committees, namely:
(b) a legal education committee consisting of ten members, of whom five shall be persons
elected by the Council from amongst its members and five shall be persons co-opted by
the Council who are not members thereof.”

14
1988 SCR (1) 732, 1987 SCC (4) 609
15
1987 AIR 1159, 1987 SCR (2) 314
16
1994 81 CompCas 482 SC, JT 1994 (3) SC 620, 1994 (2) SCALE 829, (1994) 4 SCC 332, 1994 3 SCR 618,
1994 (2) UJ 280 SC
17
AIR 1957 SC 882
18
Section 7(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961
19
Section 10 of the Advocates Act, 1961

4
31. Dispute Resolution Body - “The Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India
shall be the dispute resolution body for all disputes relating to legal education, which shall
follow a procedure ensuring natural justice for such dispute resolution as is determined by
it”20
32. It is submitted that there exists an alternative efficacious remedy to the petitioners under the
Advocates Act as well as Constitution of Sindia. So the petitioners can get relief under
Section 7(1)(f) and 10(2)(b) of the Advocates Act and can be given remedy from the High
Court.
33. Thus , there is no infringement of fundamental rights , the writ petition is not admissible.

STATISTICS:

1. The nation is the second largest populated country in the world with 1.02 billion
people in 2020 with expected increase to 1.5 billion beating Manchuria in 2030.
Sindia has more than 50% of its population below the age of 25 and more than 65%
below the age of 35. In 2020, the average age of a Sindian was 29 years.

2. In 2018, Legalindia a prominent legal news and information site stated an article
regarding an RTI application information which revealed that by 2017 there were 2
million lawyers in Sindia with a 5 % growth rate per year.

20
Rule 43 in chapter IV of the Legal Education rules 2008

5
 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 not
arbitrary to the Constitutional Principles and the guaranteed rights of citizens and non-
citizens.
2. It is submitted that the Sindia is a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic. In
normal times the distribution of powers must be strictly maintained and neither the State nor
the Centre can encroach upon the sphere allotted to the other. The power of centre and state
have been categorised into 3 lists under 7th schedule by Article 246[21].
3. The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act[22], restructured the Seventh Schedule ensuring that
State List subjects like education, forest, protection of wild animals and birds, administration
of justice, and weights and measurements were transferred to the Concurrent List.
4. Article 246 of Indian Constitution clearly says that the concurrent list consists of 47 subjects,
which includes Education (Subject no. 25). Both centre and state can make laws on the
subjects mentioned in the concurrent list. But in case of conflict between the central and state
law on concurrent subjects, the central law will prevail.
5. In the case Attorney general for India Vs. Amratlal Prajivandas, (1994) it is clearly said
that if the authority of parliament to pass a particular piece of legislation is questioned, one
must look to the items in List II. If the said statute is not related to any of the entries own List
II, no further investigation is required because parliament will be competent to enact the said
statute either through the entries in List I or List III.
6. Therefore it is more clear that union is competent to make law in matters of education in
Sindia and this power delegated to Bar Council Sindia does not tends to override State‟s
power on the subject of education.
7. It is submitted that the according to the Article 253 [23] the Parliament is empowered to make
laws for the whole or any part of the territory of Sindia for implementing treaties and
international agreements and conventions. In other words, the normal distribution of powers
will not stand in the way of Parliament to pass a law for giving effect to international
obligations even though such law relates to any of the subject in the State List.

21
Article 246 of the Constitution of Sindia, 1950.
22
Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976
23
Article 253 of the Constitution of Sindia, 1950.

6
8. Legal profession is a noble profession. Law is important to society as it serves its citizen as a
norm of conduct. Legal education serves society liberally by imparting general and cultural
education to law students making them good law abiding citizens. Therefore legal education
plays an important role in the social welfare of the state and socio economic status.
9. In Sindia legal profession has grown to a great extent. As per data the legal profession has its
growth with annual growth rate between 2007 and 2011 of around 4 percent. Uttardesh is
home to the largest number advocates with average growth rate of 3.7 percent per year,
followed by Maha Pradesh and Thai Nadu, Telugudesham, and Tulunadu respectively. Even
though legal profession has a immense growth the legal profession has its share of issues like
fake lawyers, strike, disciplinary, enrollment issues also in August 2015, Mehta BCS
chairman Announced that 30 percent lawyers were fake.
10. 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.
Therefore keeping all this in mind the law minister proposed an amendment in advocates Act
in order to make a reform in legal profession.
11. By using the rules under Section 7e(a and b), 7h(a), 7(m) and 49 of the Act, the BCS, after
many deliberations with view to enhance the quality of law Education and also to streamline
the procedure for admission into law college legal education has to be raised in standard on
par with the other professional courses like Engineering and medicine. Changes in the
admission procedure have been done in a proper manner and fixing of the age limit is a
welcome one therefore the changes have been brought and they have been notified by BCS.
12. Section 49[24] speaks about General powers of the Bar Council of Sindia and it is read as
follows :
The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions under this Act, and in
particular, such rules may prescribe-
 (af) the minimum qualifications required for admission to a course of degree in law
in any recognised university.
 (d) the standards of legal education to be observed by universities in India and the
inspection of universities for that purpose.
13. It is submitted that the Section 7(m)[25] states that the functions of the Bar Council of India
shall be to do all other things necessary for discharging the aforesaid functions. Therefore it
is clear that the rules are not arbitrary to the Advocates Act as well as Constitutional limits.
14. In the case Preeti Srinvastava (Dr) vs. State of Madya Pradesh [26], the Constitution Bench
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1999 has held that regulation of admission has a
direct impact on the maintenance of standards of education and further held that while
considering the standards of education in any college or institution, the calibre of students
who are admitted to that institution cannot be ignored.

24
Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961
25
Section 7(m) of the Advocates Act, 1961
26
Writ Petition (civil) 290 of 1997

7
15. In Veterinary Council of India vs. Indian Council of Agriculture Research [27] it was held
that Vetenary Council of India is competent and empowered to prescribe standards of
Vetenary Education which includes power to regulate admission to the course. Similarly Bar
Council of India is competent to prescribe standards including age limit and it has been
brought only to maintain "standards of legal education”.
16. The above provisions and the cases would undoubtedly prove that the Bar Council has power
competence and jurisdiction to lay down norms regarding legal education thus the Bar
council of India has not override the state subject.
17. It is submitted that the Section 7(1)(h)(a)[28] provides that the functions of the Bar Council of
India shall be to regulate the standard of legal education including post-graduation in the law
and attain uniform legal education standard. Thus the Bar Council has efficient power to
frame rules under Part IV.
18. The Bar council of sindia made new rules exercising its power under section 49 of the
Advocates Act as below :
Rule 5A-(a) The legal education institutions recognised by BCS shall confer the degree of
law on the basis of citizenship from the 2023-2024 academic year. The legal education shall
enrolled 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
years program respectively, a 2 years relaxation shall be given for OBC,SC, and ST category.
19. Sindia is the second largest populated country in the world with 1.02 billion people in 2020
with expected increase to 1.5 billion beating Manchurian in 2030. Therefore even the citizens
of sindia do not have more opportunities in the legal profession and even in other
professions. So to increase the opportunities for the citizens of Sindia the Bar council of
sindia has said to enrol only Indian citizens for the Bachelor Programme.
20. It is submitted that the rule 5A(a) in Part IV[29] states that the legal education institutions
recognized by BCS shall confer the degree of law on 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.
21. It is submitted that the legal education institutions shall confer the degree of law course on
basis of citizenship. It is nowhere stated that the non-citizens shall not be conferred with the
degree of law course. Here there is no violation of right to equality under Article 14 to both
citizens and non-citizens.
22. While relying on Article 10 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers 1990 which
clearly says that Governments, professional associations of lawyers and educational
institutions shall ensure that there is no discrimination against a person with respect to entry
into or continued practice within the legal profession on the grounds of race, colour, sex,
ethnic origin, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth,

27
2000 (1) SCC 750
28
Section 7(1)(h)(a) of the Advocates Act, 1961
29
Part IV – Rule pertaining to uniform standard in legal education.

8
 economic or other status, except that a requirement, that a lawyer must be a national of the
country concerned, shall not be considered discriminatory.
23. It is submitted that the Article 253 enables the Govt. of Sindia to implement all international
obligations and commitments. Treaties are not required to be ratified by Parliament.[30]
24. By this it is more clear that the classification on the ground of nationality cannot be
considered as discriminatory and thus the Rule 5A-(a) is neither arbitrary nor violates any
principles of the Constitution.
25. Next the Rule 5A-(b) which says that the maximum age for admission shall be 20 years and
25 years for 5 years program and 3 years program respectively, a 2 years relaxation shall be
given for OBC,SC, and ST category.
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K.Anand Vs. Registrar [31], Delhi High Court spoke about
the responsibility of Bar Council in the administration of Justice. The right first step has been
taken by the Bar Council by prescribing age limit for legal education and more steps are
expected in the interest of the society at large.
27. Here the relaxation for OBC, SC and ST category is given as under Article 46.
Article 46[32] enjoins the State to promote with special care the education and economic
interest of the weaker sections of the people, and in particular of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes, and to promote them from social injustice and of all forms of exploitation.
28. India currently does not have any codified law on age discrimination and there is no
designated statutory body that deals with matters pertaining to age discrimination and also
according to Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1950 which provides Equality before
law clearly states 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 Prohibition of discrimination on
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.[33]
29. Article 14[34] clearly states 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 and the discrimination on
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. The age has not been considered as the
criteria for discrimination under Article 14 of the Indian constitution therefore the
discrimination of age clearly doesn‟t violate Right to equality under Article 14.
30. 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[35], 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.[36]

30
Constitutional Law of India by Dr. J. N. Pandey, 58th edition, Central Law Agency at pg no : 720
31
2009(6) SCJ 465
32
Article 46 of the Constitution of Sindia, 1950
33
Accessed on 1th February,2023, http://www.agediscrimination.info
34
Article 14 of the Constitution of Sindia, 1950
35
Bhuddan Chaudhary vs State of Bihar, 1955 AIR 191, 1955 SCR (1)1045

9
31. Consider the acceptability/genuineness of those factors and consequently, the
validity/sustainability of the Rule. The main reasons attributed to bring in Rules are,
 To upkeep the professional standards and to protect the interests of the members of
the legal profession.
 Legal Profession has become competitive and only a few are successful and others
are unable to thrive.
 Several candidates, without formal or basic education, succeed in getting law degree
while in government service or other employment, making the profession a pastime.
 To sift those who obtained fake law degrees from unrecognised universities of other
States and to prevent deterioration in quality and standards.
 To protect exclusively the interest of fresh entrants from the invasion of those who
had no initial inclination to join the profession.
 The belated entrants claim to be treated on par with the Advocates who have accepted
the profession as full time career in the matter of benefits arising from Welfare
Scheme for the Advocates.
 Right to practice is merely a statutory right and not a fundamental right.[37]
32. In Inamdar vahat Vs. Symbosis Society's Law College[38] the Bombay High Court held
that rules framed by Bar Council of India prescribing minimum qualification for admission to
a degree course in law in any university cannot be said to be arbitrary.
33. The Gujarat High Court in Jayesh Hema chandra Belsare Vs. Registrar, BhavaNagar
University[39] reported in 1986 held that university has to implement the norms laid down by
the Bar Council of India which is empowered to make rules relating to standards of legal
education.
34. Prescribing an upper age limit for admission of the legal profession cannot be said arbitrary
or against the constitutional principles since the Bar council has the power to fix the
minimum qualifications for the admission into law colleges under Section 49 (af) of the
Advocates Act 1961. It is submitted that the Bar Council of Sindia has made new rules
exercising its power under Section 49.
35. By this it is more clear that the Amendment and Rules prescribed by the Bar council of India
pertaining to uniform standards in legal education by BCS is not arbitrary to the
constitutional principles and guaranteed rights of citizen and non citizen.
36. Thus it is the Amendment and the Rule pertaining to uniform standards in legal education by
BCS is not arbitrary to any of the Constitutional Principles and the guaranteed rights of
citizens and non-citizens.

36
V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India by Mahendra Pal Singh,Twelfth Edition, Eastern Book Company at pg
no. 51
37
M. Radhakrishna vs Secretary of Bar Council of India, AIR 2007 Mad 108, 2006 (5) CTC 705, Page 3168
38
AIR 1984 Bombay 451
39
(1986) 1 GLR 604

10
 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 does not
violates Constitutional limits and principles.
2. It is submitted that the Union of Sindia is a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic.
The court system expanded the power and protected the system through the interpretation.
3. In 1961 the Sindian Parliament brought Sindian Advocates Act. 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 jurisdiction of High Court.
4. It is submitted that in 2021 World Justice Index which ranked countries on the standard of
administration of Justice and human rights ranked Sindia as 79th out of 139 countries. As
soon as the law 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.
5. It is submitted that the Article 19(1) (g) [40] guarantees that all citizens shall have the right
“to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business”.
6. 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 [41] Kuldeep Singh J defines the expressions in article 19 (1) (g) as
follows:
Profession means in occupation carried on by a person by virtue of his personal and
specialised qualifications, training or skill.
7. It is submitted that under clause (6) of the Article 19, the State can make any law –
 Imposing reasonable restriction on this right „in the interest of public‟.
 Prescribing profession or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any
carrying on any occupation, trade or business
 Enabling the State to carry on any trade or business to the exclusion of citizens
wholly or partially.
8. The expression „in the interest of general public‟ in Article 19(6) is of wide import
comprehending public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the
community and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution.
9. Professional and Technical qualifications: A law lying down professional or technical
qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation trade or

40
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950
41
1989 4 SCC 155

11
 business is saved. It would be noted that there is no condition of reasonableness as to
qualifications prescribed for carrying on any profession or trade. It follows that the courts
will have no power to decide if the technical or professional qualification laid down by law in
respect of any trade or business are reasonable or not.
10. In the Bar Council of India vs High Court of Kerala[42], the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held
that an Advocate does not have absolute right to practice. It is not a fundamental right but a
statutory right which is subjected to conditions which must be complied with, provided that
one should satisfy the prescribed conditions that are laid down by the statutory body that
regulates and governs the legal profession.
11. In Express Newspapers v Union of India[43], it was held by the Supreme Court that there
ought to be a reasonable balance between the freedoms enshrined under Article 19(1) and the
social control permitted by clauses (2) to (6). In addition to this, the restriction imposed shall
have a direct or proximate nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the law.
12. It is submitted that the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of
India are non-absolute rights. This means that the extent to which these rights could be
exercised may be limited by the State. It is submitted that the new amendment as well as the
new rules does not violates the Constitutional limits and principles.
13. It is submitted that the Article 21[44] of the Constitution provides:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law”.
14. In the case of Sodan Singh Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee [45], a 5 judge bench of
the Supreme Court held that the right to carry on any trade or business is not included in the
concept of life and personal liberty. Article 21 is not attracted in the case of trade and
business.
15. If no cut off age is fixed for entry into the profession, there would be a constant increase in
the ratio of admission into colleges and enrolment of candidates after retirement and a
situation will be reached to threaten the integrity of the legal profession. Hence, merely
because the Advocates Act prescribes completion of 21 years as minimum age limit for
entering into the profession in Section 24(1)(b) of the Advocates Act, no inference can be
drawn that the Parliament in its wisdom had not thought fit to stipulate an upper age limit
while prescribing a minimum age limit.[46]
16. 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. Thus it is clear that the Bar
Council while exercising the delegated legislated have acted within its ambit.
17. It is submitted that the rule 10(1)(a) in Part VI[47] states that :

42
AIR 2004 SC 2227
43
1985 1 SCC 641
44
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
45
AIR 1989 SC 1988
46
M. Radhakrishnan vs The Secretary, The Bar Council Of India, AIR 2007 Mad 108, 2006 (5) CTC 705
47
Part VI - Rule pertaining to uniform standard of enrolment in the Bar and Rule governing Advocates

12
 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.
18. Legal profession can be classified into four categories, viz.,
Category No. 1: Fresh law graduates, who enroll and continue to practise, taking legal
profession as full time career.
Category No. 2: Fresh law graduates, who, after getting enrolled, suspend the enrolment, go
for some other profession or employment, again leisurely turn back to the legal profession
when they desire so.
Category No. 3: Service candidates, who during the course of their employment or before
that, pursue the law course and comes to the profession only after superannuation or
voluntary retirement.
Category No. 4: Persons, who managed to get fake law degrees and enter into the field.
On a careful consideration of the matter, we have no second opinion that category No. 4 is
definitely to be eliminated so ASBE exam is conducted as soon as the completion of law
graduation because the Bar Council feels that this category is trying to grab the benefits that
are exclusively accruable to category No. 1.[48]
19. It is submitted that the ASBE is to be conducted thrice in a year by BCS from 2023-2024
academic year and apply for students enrolled from 2022-2023 batch onwards in Law
Course. Thus the new rule provides for more opportunity to attend the ASBE Exam.
20. It is submitted that any law graduate enrolled from the 2022-2023 batch shall be eligible to
appear in the ASBE Exam within 3 years of completion of the course i.e., receiving the
degree is not arbitrary to constitutional limits as the noble profession i.e., law profession
requires quality than quantity as only qualitative professionals make the profession
qualitative.
21. It is well known that the ASBE Exam is an open book exam and a certificate-based
examination, conducted by the Bar Council of Sindia (BCS). The AIBE is conducted by BCI
to test an advocate's ability to practice the profession of law in India.
22. It is submitted that in the case Bar council of India vs. Bonnie Foi law college on 2023, a 5-
judge Constitution Bench has upheld the Bar Council of India‟s (BCI) power to conduct pre-
enrolment examination i.e. All India Bar Examination (AIBE). The Court observed that
neither the provisions under the Advocates Act, 1961, nor the role of the universities to
impart legal education, in any way, prohibit the Bar Council of India from conducting pre-
enrolment examination, as the Council is directly concerned with the standard of persons
who want to obtain a license to practice law as a profession. It is submitted that Section 24(1)
of the said Act opens with the words "subject to the provisions of this Act, and the rules
48
M. Radhakrishnan vs The Secretary, The Bar Council Of India, AIR 2007 Mad 108, 2006 (5) CTC 705

13
 made thereunder" thereby making the conditions under Section 24(1) and its sub- clauses,
directly subject to the rules framed under the said Act.
23. It is submitted that any law graduate who had regularly attended class and have passion
towards to legal profession would definitely clear ASBE exam within 3 years as he have
gained knowledge through class room present and that to the ASBE is a open book exam. If a
person could not clear an open book exam (ASBE), soon after completion of his/her degree
then he really does not deserve to be in this noble profession [law] which ensures justice to
all the human beings.
24. This new rule also provides that any law graduate pursuing pre-final or final year shall be
eligible to appear in the ASBE and also the attempts of the exams have been increased.
Hence the opportunity for every law graduates has been increased with the view to enhance
the interest of all the students.
25. It is submitted that the bar councils have been created at the state level as well as the central
level not only to protect the interest rights and privileges of its members but also to protect
the litigating public by ensuring that high and noble traditions are maintained so that the
purity and dignity of the profession are not jeopardized.
26. It is submitted that the new rules have be framed by exercising power conferred under
Section 7(1)(e)[49] which is read as:
Sec 7(1)(e) - to promote and support law reforms;
(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.
27. It is submitted that the Section 7(m)[50] states that the functions of the Bar Council of India
shall be to do all other things necessary for discharging the aforesaid functions. Therefore it
is clear that the rules are not arbitrary to the Advocates Act as well as Constitutional limits.
28. It is in order to uphold the high standards professional morality and integrity, the bar council
of Sindia was compelled to enact a rule restricting the entry into the legal profession by
prescribing the age limit.
29. It is submitted that the Section 7(1)(g)[51] states that the functions of the Bar Council of India
shall be to exercise general supervision and control over State Bar Council.
30. It is submitted that the Section 48 B(1)[52] states the Power to give directions ―
(1) For the proper and efficient discharge of the functions of a State Bar Council or any
committee thereof, the Bar Council of India may, in the exercise of its powers of general
supervision and control, give such directions to the State Bar Council or any committee
thereof as may appear to it to be necessary, and the State Bar Council or the committee
shall comply with such directions.

49
Section 7(1)(e) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
50
Section 7(M) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
51
Section 7(1)(g) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
52
Section 48 B(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

14
31. Section 49 (1)(ag)[53] when read with section 24 of the act confers wide powers on the bar
council of Sindia to indicate the class or category of persons who may be enrolled as
advocates which power would include the power to refuse enrollment in certain
circumstances. The obligations to maintain the dignity and purity of the profession and to
punish erring members carries with it the power to regulate entry into the profession with a
view to ensuring that only profession oriented people join the bar and those not so oriented
are kept out.
32. In Bar council of India vs. Bonnie Foi law college on 2023, the Supreme Court has clearly
said that a plain reading of Sections 6(a), 6(b), Section 24(1)(e) and Section 28(2)(d) of the
said Act indicates that the functions of the State bar Council relates to preparing and
maintenance of rolls and the admission of persons as advocates on its roll. However, in stark
contrast, the Rule making power of the Bar Council of India under Section 49(1)(ag) of the
said Act empowers the Bar Council of India to prescribe rules that could specify a class or
category of persons who are entitled to be enrolled. The meaning of “entitle” would indicate
that the Bar Council of India could prescribe such conditions which would give the right or
claim to a person to be enrolled as an advocate. Thus, Bar Council of India‟s role prior to
enrolment cannot be ousted.
33. It is submitted that a person who has already spent the best years of his life in pursuing some
other professions or occupations cannot be said to have the correct attitude of a service
oriented professional and cannot be expected to maintain the high standards of professional
conduct.
34. In Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa [54], the appellant was a
medical practitioner since 1970 who insisted that even though he was a medical practitioner,
he was entitled to simultaneously carry on the profession as an advocate. The Supreme Court
opined that Section 49(1)(ag) when read with Section 24 of the said Act confers wide powers
on the Bar Council of India to indicate the class or category of persons who may be enrolled
as advocates, which would include the power to refuse enrolment in certain cases. The Bar
Council of India was held to be empowered to take all such steps as it considered necessary
to filter students at the entry stage to the law course at the entry point of the profession, e.g.
by providing an examination or a training course before enrolment as an advocate.
35. In the case Satish Kumar vs Bar Council of H.P.[55], a three Judge Bench of this Court held
that the enrollment under Section 24 of the Advocates Act is subject to the rules framed by
the BCS under Section 49 of the said Act, even if no rules were framed under Section
24(1)(e) or Section 28(2).
36. Thus the Amendment and the Rule pertaining to uniform standards of enrollment in the Bar
does not violates Constitutional limits and principles.

53
Section 49(1)(ag) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
54
(Dr.) Haniraj L. Chulani vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa,1996 AIR 1708, 1996 SCC (3) 342
55
Satish Kumar vs Bar Council of H.P., Appeal (civil) 5395 of 1997

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 not admissible and dismiss the petition.

2. Declare the Amendments and Rules pertaining to uniform standards in legal education

by BCS is not arbitrary to the constitutional principles and guaranteed rights of citizens

and non-citizens

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

Bar does not 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,

-(R)

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT