The Supreme Court Today (Dec 17) agreed to examine whether a person can be denied enrolment as an advocate if her graduation was through a correspondence degree course. The issue arose in an appeal challenging an order of the Telangana High Court by which the High Court had rejected the plea of a candidate, one STS Gladies (appellant), seeking direction to the Bar Council of Telangana to enrol her.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today agreed to examine whether a person can be denied enrolment as an advocate if her graduation was through a correspondence degree course.
This issue has come to light through an appeal filed by STS Gladies, who challenged a Telangana High Court decision. The High Court had rejected her plea, which sought a directive for the Bar Council of Telangana to grant her enrolment as an advocate.
Telangana High Court’s Decision
The Telangana High Court, in its judgment, held that Gladies was ineligible for enrolment as a lawyer because her graduation degree was acquired through correspondence.
Supreme Court Takes Notice
On Monday, a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale took up the matter and issued a notice on the appeal filed by Gladies. The Court sought responses from both the Bar Council of Telangana and the Bar Council of India (BCI) within four weeks.
“Issue notice, returnable within four weeks. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted,”
-the Supreme Court ordered.
Background of the Case
The appellant, STS Gladies, completed her Bachelor of Arts degree in 2012 via correspondence from Kakatiya University. However, her application for enrolment as an advocate was turned down by the Bar Council of Telangana, citing her correspondence-based degree as the reason.
In defense, the Bar Council of Telangana referred to its previous decisions in M. Naveen Kumar v. State of Telangana and Katroth Pradeep Rathod v. Bar Council of India, asserting that correspondence degrees do not meet the eligibility criteria for enrolment as an advocate. The High Court upheld this argument and dismissed Gladies’ plea.
Moving to the Supreme Court
After the High Court’s unfavorable ruling, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court to seek relief.
Legal representation for STS Gladies included advocates Gaurav Kumar, Agrim Tandon, Naman Shrestha, and Vinod Sharma.
The Next Steps
The Supreme Court’s decision to examine this case could have far-reaching implications for individuals who have pursued education through correspondence courses.
The responses from the Bar Council of Telangana and the Bar Council of India are awaited in this regard.
This case could set a significant precedent, determining whether correspondence degrees hold the same validity as regular degrees for enrolment in professional fields such as law.
CASE TITLE:
STS Gladies v. Bar Council of India and Another.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Lawyer Enrolment
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
