Supreme Court Orders Provisional Enrolment Of 3-Year Law Graduates With Distance Or Open Bachelor Degrees
The Court granted provisional enrolment to law graduates who pursued prior qualifications via distance education, preventing career delays while it evaluates BCI Rule 5.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has directed the Telangana State Bar Council to grant provisional enrollment to candidates who have regular degrees in law, but whose previous academic qualifications, such as graduation, were obtained through distance, open or correspondence learning.
It was clarified that denying enrolment while Civil Appeals remain pending causes avoidable prejudice to law graduates entering the legal profession.
The case was reagrding the interpretation and application of Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, framed by the Bar Council of India.
The Court specified that this provisional enrolment remains subject to document verification and will create no equity in favour of the applicants pending final adjudication.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, "In these circumstances, we are 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 notwithstanding completion of their regular law degrees. At the same time, their interests can adequately be protected without prejudicing the final adjudication of the appeals by directing that their enrolment be provisional and expressly subject to the final outcome of the respective Civil Appeals."
Advocate on Record Vinod Sharma appeared for the Appellants, while Senior Advocate A. Mariarputham appeared for the Respondents
A batch of pleas was filed concerning the eligibility of candidates for enrolment as advocates where the law degree was obtained through the regular mode, but one or more of the preceding educational qualifications were obtained through the open, distance or correspondence mode.
Applications were also filed seeking interim directions in relation to enrolment as advocates pending final adjudication of the respective Civil Appeals.
It was the case of one of the Appellants that he had completed his Intermediate qualification in 2005 and thereafter obtained his B.Com. degree in 2006 through the distance mode from Madurai Kamaraj University. He subsequently completed the three-year LL.B. course through the regular mode from Marwadi Siksha Samithi Law College, affiliated to Osmania University, in September 2020.
He submitted his application for enrolment as an advocate before the Telangana State Bar Council on 11.01.2021. His claim for enrolment was ultimately not accepted on the basis of the interpretation placed upon Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. The Telangana High Court rejected this challenge.
The Court said that, at the current stage, it was not inclined to enter into the merits of the controversy concerning the interpretation of Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, which shall be considered at the time of final hearing of the respective Civil Appeals.
It was observed, "Such provisional enrolment shall not create any equity in their favour and shall remain subject to verification of their documents and fulfilment of the other applicable requirements."
Hence, the Court held that the application deserved to be allowed to the limited extent of granting provisional enrolment, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues arising in the respective Civil Appeals.
"Accordingly, the Telangana State Bar Council is directed to provisionally enrol the applicants in I.A. No. 246673 of 2026 in Civil Appeal No. 13559 of 2025 as advocates, subject to verification of their educational and other requisite documents and fulfilment of the other applicable requirements. Such enrolment shall remain subject to the final outcome of Civil Appeal No. 13559 of 2025", it was directed.
The Court directed the Telangana State Bar Council to provisionally enrol the appellant as an advocate, subject to verification of his educational and other requisite documents and fulfilment of the other applicable requirements.
Accordingly, the matter was listed for further hearing in due course.
Cause Title: STS Gladies v. Bar Council of India & Anr. [Civil Appeal No.13559 OF 2025]
Appearances:
Appellants: Advocate on Record Vinod Sharma, Advocate Gaurav Kumar, Advocate Agrim Tandon, Advocate Naman Shrestha, Advocate Vishal Tiwari, Advocate Priyanka S. Aneja, Advocate Mukesh Kumar Thakur
Respondents: Senior Advocate A. Mariarputham, Advocate on Record Radhika Gautam, Advocate on Record B. Shravanth Shanker, Advocate on Record Parmanand Gaur, Advocate on Record M/S. Ram Sankar & Co., Advocate Grahita Agarwal, Advocate Prerna Robin, Advocate Shivam Kunal, Advocate I.V. Sai Nikhil, Advocate Dandu Laxman, Advocate B. Yeshwanth Raj, Advocate Shreyas Jayasimha, Advocate Dr Ram Sankar, Advocate Megha Gaur, Advocate Vibhav Mishra