The Septuagenarian has urged the court to declare that she has a fundamental right to pursue legal education and that the right is protected under the umbrage of Article 21 of the Constitution.
A septuagenarian desirous of studying law and denied admission to pursue a three year LL.B course has challenged BCI rules prescribing an upper age limit of 20 years for 5 year and 30 years for a 3 year LL.B course.
To this end, the 77-year old woman has moved a plea to intervene in a case already pending on the issue wherein the revenant BCI rule has been challenged i.e. Rishabh Duggal vs Bar Council of India (BCI).
Rajkumari Tyagi, 77, a resident of Sahibabad in Uttar Pradesh developed an interest in law after she was left alone to defend the estate of her late husband.
The plea mentions that the lady had dealt with legal complications, without having to resort to a lawyer, at every given point when handling the will or identification of records.
Rajkumari Tyagi, who is seeking to get admitted in a 3-year law course, has prayed before the court to declare Circular No. 6 dated September 17, 2016, and Clause 28, Schedule III, Rule 11 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 as violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The plea states that these rules are ultra vires the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India (Legal Education) Rules 2008
The applicant has urged the Court to declare that she has a fundamental right to pursue legal education in a college or institution of her choice and that the right is protected under the umbrage of Article 21 of the Constitution.
"The Bar Council of India by way of Clause 28, Schedule- III, Rule 11 of the Rules of Legal Education- 2008, has restricted citizens by from securing admission by imposing an upper age limit for getting admission into any law college/ university which is violative of Article 14 under the Constitution of India, 1950, in as much as it violates the principle of equality, and equal opportunity for those who are desirous of obtaining education in the discipline of law."
reads the IA.
The plea states that challenged notification strikes at the heart of the decision rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi.
"It has been laid down that Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not limited to mere “animalistic existence” but also includes right to live with dignity which includes facilities for reading and writing and the right to receive instructions in a course/medium of one’s choice," reads the plea, in this regard.
Her intervention application has been filed by Advocate on Record Astha Sharma and drawn by Advocates Nipun Saxena, Serena Sharma and Umang Tyagi.
