In a couple of civil appeals filed before the Supreme Court arising out of a batch of proceedings regarding the eligibility of candidates for enrolment as advocates where the law degree had been obtained through regular mode, but one or more of the preceding educational qualifications have been obtained through open, distance, or correspondence mode, a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta granted provisional enrolment to the applicants subject to certain conditions.
The present controversy concerned the interpretation and application of Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 framed by the Bar Council of India (BCI). Two interim applications were also filed before the Court seeking appropriate interim directions for enrolment as advocates pending final adjudication of the civil appeal.
The applicants in one of the interim applications stated that they completed their requisite school education and obtained their Bachelor’s degrees from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University, Hyderabad. They subsequently completed their respective three-year LL.B. courses through regular mode from universities recognised by the BCI. Their enrolment had not been processed on account of the preceding Bachelor’s degrees having been obtained through the open or distance mode.
The applicant in the other interim application completed his intermediate qualification in 2005 and obtained his B.Com. degree in 2006 through the distance mode from Madurai Kamaraj University. He then completed the three-year LL.B. course through the regular mode from Marwadi Siksha Samithi Law College, affiliated to Osmania University, in September 2020, and submitted his application for enrolment as an advocate before the Telangana State Bar Council on 11-01-2021. His claim for enrolment was not accepted based on the interpretation placed upon Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, and his challenge was rejected by the High Court of Telangana by judgment and order dated 14-10-2024.
The Court stated that it was not inclined to enter into the merits of the controversy regarding interpretation of Rule 5 and that the same would be considered at the time of final hearing of the respective civil appeals. Considering the circumstances, the Court opined that the continued denial of enrolment during the pendency of the appeals would cause avoidable prejudice to the persons concerned and that it would prevent them from entering the legal profession notwithstanding completion of their regular law degrees.
It was said that the candidates’ interest can be protected without prejudicing the final adjudication of the appeals directing that their enrolment be provisional and expressly subject to the final outcome of the appeals. Hence, the Court opined that the applications deserved to be allowed to the limited extent of granting provisional enrolment.
The Court directed the Telangana State Bar Council to provisionally enrol the applicants in one of the interim applications and the appellant in a civil appeal as advocates, subject to verification of their educational and other requisite documents and fulfilment of the other applicable requirements. It was also held that such enrolment would remain subject to the final outcome of the appeals.
Lastly, it was clarified that the provisional enrolment would not create any equity in favour of the persons concerned and that they shall abide by the final decision of the appeals. Thus, the interim applications were disposed of.
