The Madras High Court bench here today refused to lift the stay on admissions to law courses in Dr Ambedkar Law University, the nodal agency for admissions to such courses in Tamil Nadu and its affiliated law colleges.
Justices S Manikumar and V M Velumani, who heard the counter by Tamil Nadu Bar Council Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Law to the state, refused to lift the stay and posted the case for hearing on July 2.
The University Registrar had issued the notification on June 4 for admissions in 2015-16 academic year. It did not prescribe an age limit for SC/ST candidates for the five-year BA.BL and three-year courses.
For other communities, the age limit for the five-year course was fixed at 21 years and none for the three-year course, leading to an advocate B Ashok challenging the notification.
The bench had stayed the notification on June 18.
When the matter came up today, Law department's Deputy Secretary S George Alexander filed the counter seeking to vacate the stay. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pudhucherry Secretary V Dakshanamoorthy also filed counters.
The Deputy Secretary said upto academic year 2006-08, there was no upper age limit to the three-year course and upper age limit of 21 years was prescribed for admission to the five-year integrated BL degree course. However, no age limit was prescribed to SC/ST candidates.
In 2008, Bar Council of India incorporated a clause to the Rules of Legal Education prescribing age limit, as per which it was prescribed from the year 2009-10. But BCI withdrew the clause through a resolution on September 28, 2013.
Besides, there was no upper age limit for other professional courses like medicine and engineering.
Considering all aspects, the state government directed the Law University to proceed with the admisssions as per BCI norms, which issued the admission notification on June 4.
"As far as the state government is concerned, it is acting as per the provisions of BCI in the law admission. The court's stay has affected candidates intending to pursue law courses in the present academic year. Thus, it is necessary to vacate the interim stay and allow the registrar to complete the admission process," said the Deputy Secretary.
In his counter, BCTNP Secretary denied the charges against the Bar Council that criminals were being enrolled without verifying their background and that many of them got degrees without even studying in proper law schools.
He said BCI had power to fix norms for admissions to law courses. He maintained that state Bar Council scrupulously followed provisions in enrolling candidates as advocates.
But the bench refused to vacate the stay and directed BCI to file counter and adjourned it to July 2.
