The candidates all did their LL.B. in the regular mode from recognised universities; the problem was a graduation or intermediate qualification earned earlier through open or distance learning, which the Bar Council read Rule 5 as barring. That interpretation is under challenge and yet to be decided. Rather than leave law graduates locked out of the profession while the question is argued, the Supreme Court has let them be enrolled provisionally, on the express footing that it decides nothing and creates no right.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed the Telangana State Bar Council to provisionally enrol as advocates a set of candidates whose enrolment had been held up because, although their three-year LL.B. degrees were obtained through the regular mode, one or more of their earlier educational qualifications had been obtained through the open, distance or correspondence mode [STS Gladies v. Bar Council of India and Another].
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the interim order, expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying controversy.
The controversy
The appeals arise from a batch of proceedings concerning the eligibility for enrolment as advocates of candidates who obtained their law degree in the regular mode but one or more of whose preceding qualifications were obtained through open, distance or correspondence learning. The controversy principally concerns the interpretation and application of Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, framed by the Bar Council of India.
In one of the applications, the candidates had completed their schooling and then obtained Bachelor’s degrees from an open university before completing their three-year LL.B. courses in the regular mode from BCI-recognised universities; their enrolment was not processed because of the mode of the earlier Bachelor’s degrees. In the connected appeal, the appellant had obtained a B.Com. through the distance mode in 2006 and then completed a three-year LL.B. in the regular mode in 2020, but his application for enrolment before the Telangana State Bar Council was not accepted on the interpretation placed on Rule 5, a rejection upheld by the Telangana High Court in October 2024.
What the Court held
The Court declined, at this interim stage, to enter into the merits of the Rule 5 controversy, which it said would be considered at the final hearing of the appeals. But it recorded an undisputed fact that shaped its interim view: that the candidates had all 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 the qualifications obtained before the LL.B., which was the very issue pending before the Court.
In those circumstances, the Court held that continued denial of enrolment during the pendency of the appeals would cause avoidable prejudice:
“…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, the Court was careful to protect the final adjudication. It directed that the enrolment be provisional and expressly subject to the final outcome of the appeals, that it create no equity in the candidates’ favour, and that it remain subject to verification of documents and fulfilment of the other applicable requirements.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Telangana State Bar Council to provisionally enrol the applicants in both matters as advocates, subject to verification and to the final outcome of the respective appeals, making clear that the provisional enrolment would not create any equity and would abide by the final decision. The appeals themselves are to be listed for hearing in due course.
Why it matters
The order is a textbook example of how a court holds the ring while a substantial question of law waits to be decided. The candidates face a binary that a delayed hearing turns into a real hardship: if the Rule 5 interpretation goes their way they are entitled to practise now, and every month they are kept out is a month of a career lost that no final judgment can restore. Provisional enrolment neutralises that asymmetry, letting them work while the law is settled, and the careful conditions, no equity, subject to verification, abiding by the final result, ensure that if the interpretation ultimately goes against them, nothing has been irreversibly conceded.
The underlying question is one of real importance to a large number of aspirants. Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education governs the qualifications with which a person may be admitted to a law course, and the point in dispute, whether a candidate whose LL.B. is indisputably regular can be denied enrolment because an earlier degree was earned through distance or open learning, affects many who took the open-university route to their first degree before studying law conventionally. The Bar Council’s stricter reading and the candidates’ contrary one are yet to be resolved, and this order deliberately leaves that resolution untouched.
What should not be lost is the limit of the order. It is not a ruling that distance-mode preceding qualifications are acceptable, nor a finding that the Bar Council was wrong; it is a holding that, pending decision, these graduates should not be shut out of the profession, on terms that keep the final question genuinely open. Provisional enrolees take their place at the Bar on notice that their status depends on the outcome of the appeals, which the Court will hear in due course.
Case Title: STS Gladies v. Bar Council of India and Another [Civil Appeal No. 13559 of 2025, with Civil Appeal No. 13562 of 2025]
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: September 9, 2026
Status: Interim order. Telangana State Bar Council directed to provisionally enrol the applicants, subject to verification and to the final outcome of the appeals. No opinion expressed on the interpretation of Rule 5; appeals to be listed for hearing.