The Supreme Court has recently directed the Telangana State Bar Council to provisionally enrol as advocates a batch of applicants whose three-year LL.B. degrees were obtained through the regular mode, but whose enrolment had been withheld on the ground that their preceding educational qualifications (Bachelor's degree) was obtained through open, distance, or correspondence mode.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the interim order in a batch of applications seeking provisional enrolment pending final adjudication of the matter which concerns the interpretation and application of Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 framed by the Bar Council of India (BCI).

The applicants (appellants) had completed their school education and thereafter obtained Bachelor's degrees from Dr BR Ambedkar Open University, Hyderabad, before completing their three-year LL.B courses through the regular mode from BCI-recognised universities. Their enrolment as advocates had not been processed on account of their preceding Bachelor's degrees having been obtained through the open or distance mode.

Another applicant (appellant) had completed his B.Com. degree in 2006 through distance mode from Madurai Kamaraj University and thereafter completed his LL.B. through regular mode from a college affiliated to Osmania University in 2020. His application for enrolment before the Telangana State Bar Council was rejected based on the interpretation of Rule 5. The rejection was subsequently upheld by the Telangana High Court in 2024.

Aggrieved by the High Court's finding, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court clarified that it was not going into the merits of the controversy regarding the interpretation of Rule 5, and the same would be considered at the final hearing.

The Court then noted that it was undisputed that both the applicants and the appellant had completed their three-year LL.B. courses through the regular mode from recognised universities, and that the impediment to their enrolment arose only from the mode of their pre-law educational qualifications. Balancing the interests, the bench observed 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.”

The Court further clarified that 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.”

In the light of aforesaid, the bench allowed provisional enrolment subject to verification of their educational and other requisite documents, with such enrolment remaining subject to the final outcome of the appeal. Disposing of the appeals, it also reiterated that the provisional enrolment granted “shall not create any equity in favour of the persons concerned and shall abide by the final decision in the respective Civil Appeals.”

Case: STS Gladies v Bar Council of India & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 950

Appearance:

For Appellants: Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR; Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv.

For Respondents: Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR; Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, AOR; M/s Ram Sankar & Co, AOR; Mr. Parmanand Gaur, AOR; Ms. Grahita Agarwal, Adv.; Mr. B. Yeshwanth Raj, Adv.; Mr. D. Laxman, Adv.

Click Here To Read/Download Order