The Supreme Court has granted provisional enrolment as advocates to law graduates whose LL.B. degrees were obtained through the regular mode but whose preceding educational qualifications were acquired through open or distance education. While protecting the candidates from being kept out of the legal profession during the pendency of their appeals, the Court has expressly left unresolved the larger question concerning the interpretation of Rule 5 of the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008.
In STS Gladies v. Bar Council of India & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 13559 of 2025 with Civil Appeal No. 13562 of 2025, the Supreme Court considered applications seeking interim protection in a controversy concerning eligibility for enrolment as advocates where candidates had completed their law degrees through the regular mode but possessed earlier qualifications obtained through open, distance or correspondence education.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, by an order dated 9 September 2026, directed the Telangana State Bar Council to provisionally enrol the concerned candidates as advocates, subject to verification of their educational and other requisite documents and fulfilment of applicable requirements.
Importantly, the Court did not finally determine the interpretation of Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. The provisional enrolment will remain subject to the final outcome of the pending Civil Appeals and will not create any equity in favour of the candidates.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy before the Supreme Court concerns the eligibility of candidates seeking enrolment as advocates where their law degree has been obtained through the regular mode, but one or more qualifications preceding the law degree were obtained through open, distance or correspondence mode.
The Court identified the issue at the outset:
“The present matters arise out of a batch of proceedings concerning the eligibility of candidates for enrolment as advocates where the law degree has been obtained through the regular mode, but one or more of the preceding educational qualifications have been obtained through the open, distance or correspondence mode.”
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.
At this stage, however, the Supreme Court was not deciding the substantive legal controversy. It was considering two interlocutory applications seeking appropriate interim directions concerning enrolment as advocates while the Civil Appeals remained pending.
The Court considered I.A. No. 246673 of 2026 in Civil Appeal No. 13559 of 2025 and I.A. No. 154580 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 13562 of 2025 through a common order since the issues raised in the two applications were substantially connected.
Applicants Had Regular LL.B. Degrees
The applicants in I.A. No. 246673 of 2026 had completed the requisite school education and thereafter obtained their Bachelor’s degrees from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University, Hyderabad.
Subsequently, they completed their respective three-year LL.B. courses through the regular mode from universities recognised by the Bar Council of India.
Their difficulty arose because their preceding Bachelor’s degrees had been obtained through the open or distance mode. According to the applicants, their enrolment as advocates was consequently not being processed.
They therefore approached the Supreme Court seeking provisional enrolment pending final adjudication of Civil Appeal No. 13559 of 2025.
The important distinction in the case is therefore between the mode through which the LL.B. degree itself was obtained and the mode through which the qualification preceding the LL.B. was obtained. The candidates before the Court had pursued their three-year LL.B. courses through the regular mode.
Case of Kevin Sukirthy
Civil Appeal No. 13562 of 2025 concerned appellant Kevin Sukirthy. He completed his Intermediate qualification in 2005 and thereafter obtained a B.Com. degree in 2006 through the distance mode from Madurai Kamaraj University.
He subsequently completed a three-year LL.B. course through the regular mode from Marwadi Siksha Samithi Law College, affiliated to Osmania University, in September 2020.
Thereafter, he applied for enrolment as an advocate before the Telangana State Bar Council on 11 January 2021. His claim for enrolment was ultimately not accepted on the basis of the interpretation placed upon Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008.
Kevin Sukirthy challenged the decision before the Telangana High Court. His challenge was rejected by the High Court by its judgment dated 14 October 2024 in Writ Petition No. 13037 of 2024.
During the pendency of his Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court, he sought provisional enrolment as an advocate.
Supreme Court Declines to Decide Rule 5 Issue at Interim Stage
An important aspect of the order is that the Supreme Court consciously refrained from deciding the larger controversy surrounding Rule 5 at the stage of considering the interlocutory applications.
After hearing the respective parties and considering the material on record, the Court observed:
“At this stage, we are not inclined to enter into the merits of the controversy concerning the interpretation of Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, which shall be considered at the time of final hearing of the respective Civil Appeals.”
Thus, the order dated 9 September 2026 is an interim arrangement and should not be read as a final pronouncement on whether every candidate possessing a preceding qualification obtained through open or distance education is entitled to enrolment as an advocate.
The interpretation and application of Rule 5 remain pending for consideration when the Civil Appeals are finally heard.
Regular LL.B. Degrees Not in Dispute
The Court then identified a significant undisputed circumstance: the candidates concerned had completed their respective three-year LL.B. courses through the regular mode from recognised universities.
The Court recorded:
“It is, however, not in dispute that the applicants in I.A. No. 246673 of 2026 as well as the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 13562 of 2025 have completed their respective three-year LL.B. courses through the regular mode from recognised universities.”
The obstacle to their enrolment did not arise from the mode of their law degrees themselves. Instead, it arose from the nature or mode of the educational qualifications obtained before pursuing the LL.B. course.
The Court further observed:
“The impediment to their enrolment arises from the nature or mode of the educational qualifications obtained prior to pursuing the LL.B. course.”
Crucially, that very issue forms the subject matter of the pending Civil Appeals.
Continued Denial of Enrolment Would Cause Avoidable Prejudice
In a significant observation, the Bench stated:
“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.”
This consideration formed the central basis for granting interim protection. The Court was therefore faced with the need to balance two considerations: on the one hand, the substantive interpretation of Rule 5 was yet to be finally adjudicated; on the other hand, withholding enrolment throughout the pendency of the appeals could prevent candidates possessing regular law degrees from entering the legal profession.
Provisional Enrolment as an Interim Safeguard
The Supreme Court addressed this situation by permitting provisional enrolment, rather than granting unconditional or final enrolment.
The Court observed that the interests of the candidates could adequately be protected without prejudicing the final adjudication by making their enrolment expressly subject to the ultimate result of the appeals.
The Court held:
“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 nature of this protection is important. The candidates are allowed to enter the profession during the pendency of the proceedings, but their enrolment does not finally determine the disputed legal issue.
The Court additionally imposed two safeguards. First, provisional enrolment would not create any equity in favour of the candidates. Second, the enrolment would remain subject to verification of documents and fulfilment of other applicable requirements.
No Opinion Expressed on Merits
The Supreme Court expressly limited its order to the question of interim relief.
It stated:
“For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the applications deserve to be allowed to the limited extent of granting provisional enrolment, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues arising in the respective Civil Appeals.”
This clarification is significant because the order does not amount to a final declaration regarding the validity of distance-mode preceding qualifications for the purpose of advocate enrolment.
The eventual interpretation of Rule 5 remains open and will be determined at the final hearing of the Civil Appeals.
Direction to Telangana State Bar Council
Consequently, the Supreme Court issued a specific direction to the Telangana State Bar Council to provisionally enrol the applicants in I.A. No. 246673 of 2026 in Civil Appeal No. 13559 of 2025 as advocates.
The direction is subject to two principal conditions:
- verification of their educational and other requisite documents; and
- fulfilment of other applicable requirements.
Their enrolment will remain subject to the final outcome of Civil Appeal No. 13559 of 2025.
The Court issued a similar direction in respect of Kevin Sukirthy in Civil Appeal No. 13562 of 2025. The Telangana State Bar Council was directed to provisionally enrol him as an advocate, again subject to verification of his educational and other requisite documents and fulfilment of applicable requirements.
His enrolment will similarly remain subject to the final outcome of Civil Appeal No. 13562 of 2025.
Provisional Enrolment Creates No Equity
To remove any ambiguity concerning the legal consequences of the interim arrangement, the Supreme Court reiterated that provisional enrolment pursuant to the order would not confer any independent or vested advantage upon the candidates.
The Court expressly clarified:
“It is made clear that the provisional enrolment granted pursuant to this order shall not create any equity in favour of the persons concerned and shall abide by the final decision in the respective Civil Appeals.”
Accordingly, the candidates cannot rely merely upon provisional enrolment as establishing their ultimate legal entitlement under Rule 5. Their position will remain governed by whatever decision the Supreme Court ultimately renders in the pending appeals.
What Does the Order Mean for Law Graduates with Distance-Mode Qualifications?
The order provides important interim relief, but its scope needs to be understood carefully. It does not hold that a law graduate is automatically entitled to enrolment merely because the LL.B. degree was obtained through regular mode irrespective of the manner in which all preceding qualifications were acquired.
Nor does the order finally invalidate the interpretation of Rule 5 that resulted in the candidates being denied enrolment.
Instead, the Court has recognised that where the very question affecting eligibility is pending before it, candidates who have already completed their regular three-year LL.B. courses from recognised universities should not necessarily remain excluded from entering the profession throughout the pendency of the litigation.
The relief granted is therefore expressly provisional, conditional and reversible depending upon the final outcome of the appeals.
Why the Distinction Between Law Degree and Preceding Qualification Matters
The factual structure of the case makes the distinction particularly important. The Supreme Court’s order concerns candidates whose LL.B. courses were completed through the regular mode. The dispute concerns the mode of educational qualifications acquired before admission to the LL.B. programme.
Therefore, the order should not be understood as permitting enrolment on the basis of an LL.B. degree itself obtained through distance or correspondence mode. No such issue was decided in this interim order.
The precise controversy identified by the Court is whether candidates can be denied enrolment because one or more of their preceding educational qualifications were obtained through open, distance or correspondence education, despite subsequently completing a regular LL.B. course from a recognised university.
Significance of the Supreme Court’s Order
The order is significant primarily because it prevents the pendency of the litigation itself from operating as an absolute barrier to the professional entry of the particular candidates before the Court.
The Court has adopted an interim arrangement that preserves both sides of the controversy. Candidates are permitted to obtain provisional enrolment and enter the profession, while the Bar Council’s position on the interpretation of Rule 5 is not finally displaced at this stage.
By expressly providing that provisional enrolment creates no equity and remains subject to the final outcome, the Court has ensured that the interim relief does not predetermine the substantive controversy.
The order therefore separates two questions: what protection should be available to the candidates while the appeals are pending, and what Rule 5 ultimately means for candidates possessing preceding qualifications obtained through open, distance or correspondence mode.
Only the first has presently been answered.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s order in STS Gladies v. Bar Council of India & Anr. provides immediate interim relief to the candidates before it by permitting their provisional enrolment as advocates despite the controversy surrounding their preceding distance-mode qualifications.
The decisive circumstance at the interim stage was that the candidates had completed their three-year LL.B. degrees through the regular mode from recognised universities, while the impediment to enrolment arose from qualifications obtained before the LL.B.
Finding that continued denial of enrolment during the pendency of the appeals could cause avoidable prejudice and prevent them from entering the legal profession, the Supreme Court directed provisional enrolment subject to document verification and other applicable requirements.
At the same time, the Bench carefully preserved the substantive controversy. The order does not finally settle the interpretation of Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, does not create any equity in favour of the provisionally enrolled candidates, and remains entirely subject to the final decision in the respective Civil Appeals.
The interlocutory applications have accordingly been disposed of, while the Civil Appeals are to be listed for hearing in due course.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams