New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed the Telangana State Bar Council to provisionally enrol as advocates a batch of candidates whose regular three-year LL.B. degrees were denied enrolment solely because one of their earlier qualifications had been obtained through the open, distance or correspondence mode, pending final adjudication of the connected civil appeals on the interpretation of Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing I.A. No. 246673 of 2026 in Civil Appeal No. 13559 of 2025, filed by STS Gladies and connected applicants, along with I.A. No. 154580 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 13562 of 2025, filed by Kevin Sukirthy, both seeking interim directions for enrolment as advocates pending final hearing of the appeals.
The applicants in I.A. No. 246673 of 2026 had completed their schooling and Bachelor's degrees from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University, Hyderabad, through the open mode, and thereafter completed their three-year LL.B. courses through the regular mode from BCI-recognised universities, but their enrolment as advocates had not been processed because of the mode of their preceding Bachelor's degrees. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 13562 of 2025, Kevin Sukirthy, had completed his Intermediate in 2005, his B.Com. through the distance mode from Madurai Kamaraj University in 2006, and his regular three-year LL.B. from a college affiliated to Osmania University in September 2020, and had applied for enrolment before the Telangana State Bar Council on 11.01.2021. His enrolment was denied based on the interpretation of Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, and his challenge was rejected by the Telangana High Court by judgment dated 14.10.2024 in Writ Petition No. 13037 of 2024, leading to the present appeal and connected application for interim enrolment.
The order does not record detailed rival submissions of the parties on the merits of Rule 5, the Court having heard the arguments and expressly declined to enter into the interpretation of the Rule at this interim stage, leaving that question for final hearing of the civil appeals.
The Court held that it was not in dispute that the applicants and the appellant had completed their regular three-year LL.B. courses from recognised universities, and that the impediment to their enrolment arose only from the mode of their preceding educational qualifications, which was precisely the issue pending before the Court in the appeals. It held that continued denial of enrolment during the pendency of the appeals would cause avoidable prejudice and keep otherwise qualified candidates out of the legal profession, and that their interests could be protected, without prejudicing final adjudication, by directing provisional enrolment expressly subject to the outcome of the appeals.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Telangana State Bar Council to provisionally enrol the applicants in Civil Appeal No. 13559 of 2025 and the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 13562 of 2025 as advocates, subject to verification of their educational and other requisite documents and fulfilment of applicable requirements, with such enrolment remaining subject to the final outcome of the respective appeals and creating no equity in their favour. Both applications were disposed of in these terms, with the civil appeals to be listed for hearing in due course.
Case Title: STS Gladies & Ors. vs. Bar Council of India & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 13559 of 2025, with Kevin Sukirthy vs. Bar Council of India & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 13562 of 2025
