सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने नियमित एलएलबी डिग्री वाले, परंतु पूर्व शिक्षा दूरस्थ मोड से हुई उम्मीदवारों को प्रोविज़नल बार एंट्री की अनुमति दी

Supreme Court: In a batch of appeals concerning the eligibility of candidates for enrolment as advocates where the law degree has been obtained through the regular mode, but the preceding educational qualifications have been obtained through the open, distance or correspondence mode, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., considered requests for provisional enrolment pending final adjudication of the appeals and directed the Telangana State Bar Council to provisionally enrol the applicants. The Court further clarified that,

“the provisional enrolment granted pursuant to this order shall not create any equity in favour of the persons concerned and shall abide by the final decision in the respective civil appeals”.

Background

The present matters concern the eligibility for enrolment as an advocate of candidates who have obtained one or more of their preceding educational qualifications through open, distance or correspondence mode, but have subsequently completed a 3-year LLB course through regular mode from universities recognised by the Bar Council of India (BCI). The controversy arises from the interpretation and application of Rule 5, Rules of Legal Education, 2008, and whether the mode through which an earlier educational qualification was obtained can affect eligibility for enrolment despite completion of a regular LLB degree from a recognised university.

The candidates concerned had completed their earlier school or undergraduate education through open or distance mode and thereafter pursued a 3-year regular LLB course. Their applications for enrolment were not processed on the ground that the preceding educational qualifications had not been obtained through regular mode. In one of the matters, the candidate had completed Intermediate and a BCom degree through distance mode before obtaining a regular LLB degree, and the challenge to the denial of enrolment had also been rejected by the Telangana High Court.

The Court was considering the requests for provisional enrolment pending the final adjudication of the appeals. The Court did not examine or decide the interpretation of Rule 5 at this stage, leaving that question for the final hearing. The immediate issue before the Court was whether candidates who had undisputedly completed a 3-year regular LLB course from recognised universities should continue to be denied enrolment during the pendency of the proceedings solely because of the mode in which their earlier educational qualifications had been obtained.

Court’s Consideration

The Court expressly declined to enter into the merits of the controversy concerning the interpretation of Rule 5, stating that the issue would be considered at the final hearing of the respective civil appeals.

The Court noted that the applicants-appellants had completed their respective 3-year LLB courses through the regular mode from recognised universities. The impediment to their enrolment arose from the mode in which the educational qualifications obtained before the LLB had been acquired. The Court noted that this was the very issue pending consideration in the appeals.

Provisional Enrolment Allowed

The Court was of the view that continued denial of enrolment during the pendency of the appeals would cause avoidable prejudice to the persons concerned and prevent them from entering the legal profession despite completion of their regular law degrees. The Court considered that their interests could be protected by granting provisional enrolment, expressly subject to the final outcome of the respective civil appeals.

The Court clarified that such provisional enrolment would not create any equity in favour of the persons concerned and would remain subject to verification of their educational and other requisite documents and fulfilment of the other applicable requirements.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Telangana State Bar Council to provisionally enrol the applicants and the appellant as advocates, subject to the stated conditions and the final outcome of the respective appeals.

The Court disposed of the interlocutory applications in those terms, while directing that the civil appeals be listed for hearing in due course.

Also Read: BCI Rules on Foreign Nationals practicing in India Explained | SCC Times

[STS Gladies v. BCI, Civil Appeal No. 13559 of 2025, decided on 9-9-2026]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the appellants: Petitioner-in-person, AOR Vinod Sharma, Gaurav Kumar, Agrim Tandon, Naman Shrestha, Vishal Tiwari, Priyanka S. Aneja, Mukesh Kumar Thakur, Advocates

For the respondents: AOR Radhika Gautam, AOR B. Shravanth Shanker, Grahita Agarwal, Prerna Robin, Shivam Kunal, I.V. Sai Nikhil, Dandu Laxman, B. Yeshwanth Raj, Shreyas Jayasimha, Senior Advocate A. Mariarputham, AOR Ram Sankar & Co., AOR Parmanand Gaur, Dr Ram Sankar, Megha Gaur, Vibhav Mishra, Advocates

Powered by Nyaya 247 News