Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Navneeth Chowdary as (party-in-person); Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.2; Mr. Aadesh Varma, learned Standing Counsel for Bar Council of India appearing for respondent No.3 and Mr. Jaggari Manikanta Reddy, leaned Standing Counsel for Bar Council of Telangana appearing for respondent No.4. Perused the entire material on record.

2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following relief:

               “…to set aside the Impugned Order/ECR Proceedings Dt.02.04.2026 passed by Respondent No.3 and declare the said ECR Proceedings Dt.02.04.2026 as Arbitrary, illegal and contrary to para 58 of the Full Bench Judgment of the Madras High Court reported in AIR 2018 MADRAS 252 and Full Bench Judgment Dt.23.07.2018 of the Madras High Court passed in W.P.No.18931 of 2017 and consequently pass an Order or Orders Direction or a Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No.4 to enroll the petitioner as an Advocate on its Roll with retrospective seniority calculated from 28.10.2024”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner appearing as a party-in-person, has filed the present writ petition contending that he pursued his regular schooling up to the 9th Class and thereafter appeared for the 10th Class examination through the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS). He subsequently pursued two years of study at the +2 level and passed the Class XII examination in the year 2017. Thereafter, he applied for TS LAWCET-2019.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that, upon verification of his educational certificates, he was permitted to appear for the TS LAWCET examination, treating him as an eligible candidate. Having secured a qualifying rank, he was permitted to participate in the counseling process. During counseling, his educational certificates were verified and an acknowledgment receipt dated 13.10.2019 was issued towards receipt of the said certificates. Thereafter, based on his rank in TS LAWCET-2019, he was allotted a seat in the five-year B.A., LL.B. course at the University College of Law, Kakatiya University, Warangal. The petitioner successfully completed the said five-year B.A., LL.B. course and was also issued the original Convocation Certificate.

5. It is further contended that after completion of the course, the petitioner submitted his application for enrolment as an Advocate before respondent No.4. However, respondent No.4 did not process his application on the ground that the petitioner had obtained his 10+2 qualification through the NIOS. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation to respondent Nos.1 to 3 complaining of the alleged nonadherence by respondent No.4 to the procedure prescribed under Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4, under the guise of the judgments passed by this Court in W.P.No.597 of 2020 and batch, dated 28.12.2021; W.P.No.45880 of 2022 and batch, dated 20.10.2023 and W.P.No.13037 of 2024, dated 14.10.2024, in withholding his enrolment application dated 28.10.2024 on the ground that he had pursued his 10+2 education through the NIOS.

7. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, does not, per se, disqualify a candidate who has obtained the 10+2/higher secondary qualification or the first degree through distance, correspondence or open-schooling mode from pursuing a law course. According to the petitioner, the said Rule only excludes candidates who have obtained the 10+2, graduation or postgraduation qualification through an open university system directly, without possessing the basic qualification required for pursuing such studies.

8. The petitioner further contended that respondent No.3 issued a circular explaining Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, pursuant to the decision taken in its Legal Education Committee meeting held on 30.04.2017, wherein it was clarified that the qualifications of 10th Class, 12th Class (+2) and graduation could be obtained through distance, correspondence or open-schooling mode.

9. It is further contended that the Convenor of TS LAWCET-2019, after verifying the petitioner’s educational certificates showing his regular studies from the 6th to 9th Class and his subsequent 10+2 qualification through NIOS, duly certified him as eligible to participate in the counseling process and issued an acknowledgment dated 13.10.2019 towards receipt of the certificates.

10. The petitioner further submitted that in view of the provisional allotment order dated 18.10.2019, he was treated as an eligible candidate under Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, and there was no infirmity in the process of his admission or allotment to the fiveyear B.A., LL.B. course.

11. It is further contended that respondent No.4, relying upon the judgments passed by this Court in W.P.No.597 of 2020 and batch, and W.P.No.13037 of 2024 dated 14.10.2024, is withholding the petitioner’s enrolment application dated 28.10.2024, even though, according to the petitioner, the ratio laid down in the said judgments is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of his case or to his eligibility under Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008.

12. The petitioner further contended that respondent No.4 and its Enrolment Committee have erroneously withheld his enrolment application by placing an interpretation upon the aforesaid judgments which has no application to his case. He submitted that respondent No.4 is under an obligation, in terms of Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, to place his enrolment application before the Enrolment Committee. According to him, the said procedure was not followed on 09.11.2024 or 24.11.2024.

13. It is further contended that under Section 26(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, if the Enrolment Committee of respondent No.4 entertains any doubt regarding the petitioner’s eligibility and proposes to refuse his enrolment on the ground that his 10+2 qualification was obtained through NIOS, the Committee is required to refer the application to the Bar Council of India for its opinion. The petitioner submits that the statute contemplates an expeditious and time-bound procedure for dealing with such a reference and that the decision of the Enrolment Committee is required to be taken in conformity with the opinion of the Bar Council of India. For the sake of convenience and better appreciation, Section 26(1) and (2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, is extracted below:

               Section 26(1) — Disposal of applications for admission as an advocate

               “(1) A State Bar Council shall refer every application for admission as an advocate to its enrolment committee, and subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) and to any direction that may be given in writing by the State Bar Council in this behalf, such committee shall dispose of the application in the prescribed manner:”

               “Provided that the Bar Council of India may, if satisfied, either on a reference made to it in this behalf or otherwise, that any person has got his name entered on the roll of advocates by misrepresentation as to an essential fact or by fraud or undue influence, remove the name of such person from the roll of advocates after giving him an opportunity of being heard.”

               Section 26(2)

               “(2) Where the enrolment committee of a State Bar Council proposes to refuse any such application, it shall refer the application for opinion to the Bar Council of India and every such reference shall be accompanied by a statement of the grounds in support of the refusal of the application.”

14. It is further contended that respondent No.4 has neither enrolled the petitioner as an Advocate nor formally proposed to refuse his enrolment, nor has it referred the petitioner’s application to respondent No.3 under Section 26(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961. According to the petitioner, the application has merely been kept in abeyance on the premise that he is ineligible since he obtained his 10+2 qualification through NIOS and his immediate qualifying qualification, namely +2/Intermediate, was not obtained through regular schooling. The petitioner submitted that such an approach is contrary to Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008.

15. The petitioner further relies upon the circular issued by respondent No.3 pursuant to the meeting of its Legal Education Committee held on 30.04.2017, which was placed before this Court as Exs.P8 and P9.

16. The petitioner also relies upon the settled principle that a judgment cannot be interpreted in isolation from the facts and circumstances in which it was rendered and that observations contained in a judgment cannot be selectively relied upon so as to attribute to them a meaning divorced from their factual and legal context.

17. According to the petitioner, the judgments relied upon by respondent No.4 were rendered in an entirely different factual context, namely, whether a candidate who had obtained a first degree, such as B.A., within one year in a single sitting, following an irregular 10+2+1 pattern instead of the prescribed regular 10+2+3 pattern, was eligible for admission to the three-year LL.B. course. It is his contention that the said question was answered in the negative and that the said judgments do not govern the eligibility of a candidate who had completed the prescribed 10+2 qualification through NIOS after pursuing regular schooling up to the 9th Class and thereafter successfully completed the five-year B.A., LL.B. course.

18. The petitioner further alleged that respondent No.4 has adopted an impermissible practice of keeping enrolment applications submitted by candidates who have pursued their 10+2 or 10+2+3 qualifications through distance, correspondence, IGNOU, TOSS, APOSE, NIOS or other open-schooling modes in abeyance, thereby compelling such candidates to approach the Court, instead of following the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

19. It is further contended that the Enrolment Committee of respondent No.4 has allegedly followed the course adopted by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, as referred to in the judgments reported in AIR 2018 Madras 243 and AIR 2018 Madras 252, wherein the said practice was deprecated.

20. The petitioner submitted that the judgments relied upon by respondent No.4 do not render Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961 otiose, nor do they invalidate the circular issued by respondent No.3 pursuant to the decision of its Legal Education Committee. According to the petitioner, the said circular was accepted by the General Council of respondent No.3 and was also noticed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru.

21. Therefore, it is contended that respondent No.4 cannot rely upon the aforesaid judgments to ignore the procedure prescribed under Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and indefinitely keep the petitioner’s enrolment application pending without either deciding the application in accordance with law or following the statutory mechanism contemplated under Section 26(2) of the Act.

22. The petitioner further submitted that he submitted a representation dated 27.11.2024 to respondent Nos.1 to 3, through post as well as e-mail, bringing to their notice the alleged non-adherence by respondent No.4 to the procedure prescribed under Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961. According to him, no effective action has been taken thereon by the concerned respondent.

23. It is further submitted that the petitioner also submitted a letter dated 28.10.2024 along with his enrolment application before respondent No.4. However, neither the said letter nor his enrolment application has been duly considered. The representation dated 27.11.2024 and the letter dated 28.10.2024 have been filed before this Court as Exs.P15 and P16/P4, respectively.

24. The petitioner further contended that the Enrolment Committee of respondent No.4, while examining an application for enrolment, exercises statutory, judicial and/or quasi-judicial functions therefore is required to act strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the applicable rules. According to the petitioner, the Enrolment Committee cannot keep an application pending indefinitely merely on the basis of its prima facie view regarding the eligibility of the applicant, without either taking a decision in accordance with law or invoking the statutory mechanism under Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961. It is submitted that though the Enrollment Committee of respondent No.4 exercises quasi-judicial powers while considering the enrollment applications of candidates, it has no power to interpret the judgments of this Court or any other Court of law according to its own whims and fancies.

25. It is further submitted that Sections 41 and 42 of the Advocates Act, 1961 are applicable only to disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, respondent No.4 has no power or authority to keep the petitioner’s enrollment application pending for months together.

26. Under Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961, respondent No.4 is required either to accept the enrollment application and enroll the candidate as an advocate on its roll or, if it proposes to refuse the application, to record in writing the grounds for such refusal and forward the said statement of grounds to respondent No.3. Thereafter, respondent No.4 is under a mandatory obligation to dispose of the application in conformity with the opinion of respondent No.3.

27. It is finally contended that by keeping the petitioner’s enrollment application pending for a considerable period without considering the same, respondent No.4 has deprived the petitioner of his seniority and consequential opportunities. Therefore, having no other efficacious remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate relief.

28. The respondents have filed their respective counter affidavits denying the averments made in the writ petition. Respondent No.3, has specifically contended that the relief sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition is neither tenable in law nor on the facts of the case and that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in view of Rule 5 of the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008, and the explanation thereto.

29. It is further contended that the Division Bench of this Court has already considered and adjudicated the issue involved in the present writ petition in W.P.Nos.45880, 46145 and 46352 of 2022 and W.P.Nos.1290, 1513, 2007 and 18209 of 2023.

30. It is further contended that the petitioner himself has admitted that he completed his Class X examination through the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) and, thereafter, pursued two years of study in +2 and completed his Class XII examination in the year 2017.

31. It is contended by the respondents that on perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner, it is evident that he completed his Class X through Open School on 08.07.2016 and thereafter pursued +2. According to the respondents, the documents do not establish that the petitioner had completed the requisite 12 years of education in the manner prescribed under the applicable Rules. Thus, the mandatory requirement of 10+2+3 education has not been fulfilled by the petitioner.

32. It is further contended that the petitioner is not eligible in view of the explanation to Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, which provides that applicants who have obtained 10+2 or graduation/postgraduation through an Open University system directly, without having the basic qualification required for pursuing such studies, are not eligible for admission to law courses.

33. It is further contended that the Division Bench of this Court, while considering the Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Madras, has held that the qualifying certificate or degree immediately preceding the law course should have been obtained after completion of the requisite regular course of study.

34. It is submitted that, insofar as the present matter relating to the enrollment of the petitioner with the Telangana State Bar Council is concerned, a candidate is required to satisfy the eligibility conditions prescribed under Sections 23 and 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. In the present case, the petitioner passed his Class X examination through NIOS. Therefore, it is necessary to ascertain whether the petitioner pursued his PUC/+2 course by undergoing two years of regular study and whether the said qualification is recognized by the concerned Board, State Government or Central Government.

35. It is further contended that though the petitioner claims that after passing Class X, he completed his +2/Intermediate examination, he has not furnished the requisite particulars regarding the mode of study through which he obtained the said qualification. Therefore, the petitioner is required to clarify the mode in which he pursued and completed his Class XII/+2 examination.

36. It is further contended that Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 mandates that a candidate must have completed the 10+2 Higher Secondary or an equivalent qualification before pursuing a graduation degree, which constitutes the minimum eligibility qualification for admission to the three-year LL.B. course.

37. According to Respondent No.3, the said requirement ensures a sequential progression in education and is intended to maintain the academic and professional standards expected in the legal profession. It is further contended that the explanation to Rule 5 clarifies that candidates who directly obtain graduation or post-graduation degrees through an Open University system without acquiring the foundational 10+2 qualification are ineligible for admission to law courses. The object of the said provision is to prevent circumvention of the prescribed educational pathway and to maintain the integrity of legal education, which is a regulated professional course.

38. It is contended that permitting candidates to bypass the foundational qualification would undermine the prescribed standards of legal education and dilute the standards for entry into the legal profession. The foundational qualification, according to the Bar Council of India, is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive requirement intended to ensure the academic preparedness of a candidate for pursuing higher legal education.

39. It is further contended that failure to satisfy the prescribed foundational qualification renders the candidate ineligible for admission to the LL.B. course and consequently, for enrollment as an advocate. It is also contended that the legal position regarding enrollment of candidates who have completed their basic education, namely 10+2, for admission either to the five-year integrated law course or to the threeyear LL.B. course, is well settled and does not require any further clarification, particularly in view of the judgments rendered by the Division Bench of this High Court in the batch of writ petitions referred to above.

40. According to Respondent No.3, the said batch of writ petitions dealt with the question of obtaining basic educational qualifications through distance education or regular courses from recognized colleges and universities. The relevant provision itself unequivocally prescribes the requirement of 10+2 qualification and leaves no scope for further adjudication on the issue. It is further contended that the Bar Council of India has also been served with notice by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation to the issue. Accordingly, respondent No.3 prayed that the reference be closed and the writ petition be dismissed as devoid of merits.

41. Respondent No.4, the Bar Council of the State of Telangana, has also filed its counter denying the averments made in the writ petition. It is contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine.

42. It is further contended that the issue raised in the present writ petition, namely, whether a candidate who has not pursued his Intermediate/10+2/Senior Secondary School Certificate/Higher Secondary qualification through a regular course of study satisfies the mandatory requirement prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 and consequently, whether such candidate is entitled to enrollment as an advocate, has already been conclusively considered by a Division Bench of this Court.

43. It is submitted that the relevant provision governing the issue involved in the present writ petition is Rule 5 of Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008. The said Rules prescribe the standards of legal education and recognition of law degrees for the purpose of enrollment as an advocate and govern the qualifications required for such enrollment.

 44. It is further submitted that the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 were framed by the Bar Council of India in consultation with the Universities and State Bar Councils. Rule 5 thereof was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.45880 of 2022 and batch and earlier, in W.A.No.597 of 2020 and batch.

45. It is also denied that respondent No.4 had unlawfully withheld the petitioner’s enrollment application. According to respondent No.4, it has been acting in accordance with the judgments rendered by this Court. It is contended that the petitioner does not fulfill the mandatory educational requirements prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008.

46. It is further contended that the circular issued by the Bar Council of India clarifying the definition of basic qualification and eligibility of candidates does not alter Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, or the proviso and explanation thereto, in any manner. Therefore, according to respondent No.4, the said circular does not advance the case of the petitioner in any manner. It is further contended that the allegation of the petitioner that the Convener of TS LAWCET had verified his certificates and, being satisfied with the same, permitted him to participate in the counseling process, would not automatically entitle the petitioner to be enrolled as an advocate without satisfying the mandatory requirements prescribed under the Rules of Legal Education, 2008.

47. It is further contended that even according to the clarification issued by the Bar Council of India and relied upon by the petitioner in the material papers filed before this Court, the basic qualification prescribed for seeking admission into a five-year law course is the 10th Standard qualification. It is submitted that, as per the explanation to Rule 5, the petitioner obtained his Secondary School Certificate through NIOS, which is an open and distance learning mode.

48. It is further contended that in any event, the Full Bench of the Madras High Court and the Division Bench of this Court have held that the intention underlying Rule 5 is that the qualifying certificate or degree immediately preceding the law course should have been obtained upon completion of a regular course of study. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the ratio laid down in the judgments of this Court is not applicable to his case is wholly misconceived.

49. It is further contended that the petitioner is not entitled to be enrolled as an advocate in view of the interpretation placed by this Court on Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. Consequently, the proviso to Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961 has no application to the facts of the present case.

50. It is further contended that the Bar Council of India is entitled to refuse enrollment to a person who has joined and completed a law course without possessing the eligibility prescribed for admission to such law course. The Bar Council of India, being the statutory professional body empowered to regulate legal education and the standards of entry into the legal profession, has prescribed the eligibility requirements for admission to law courses and for enrollment as an advocate under Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008.

51. It is further contended that, if the claim of the petitioner is entertained, it would result in a situation where candidates may seek to acquire a law degree by any means, without regard to the prescribed mode and manner of acquiring the requisite educational qualifications, thereby defeating the object and purpose of the Rules governing legal education.

52. It is submitted that there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety on the part of respondent No.4 in dealing with the petitioner’s case. The allegations of arbitrariness and unreasonableness leveled against respondent No.4 are stated to be false, incorrect and are specifically denied. Finally, it is contended that the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Court and that the writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

53. In the rejoinder, the petitioner reiterating the judgments rendered by various High Courts, contended that he is fully eligible for enrollment as an advocate. He further contended that the judgments in M Naveen Kumar v. State of Telangana and others (WA No.597 of 2020 and batch), dated 20.10.2023, and in Katroth Pradeep Rathod v. The Bar Council of India and others (WP No.45880 of 2022 and batch), dated 28.12.2021, rendered by this Court are not good precedents to be followed in the facts of the present case.

54. The petitioner has also filed a memo dated 04.08.2026 along with a bona fide certificate issued by the CRPF Public School and a study certificate issued by the Principal/Headmaster of the said institution. The certificates disclose that the petitioner studied from LKG to Class V in the said school and from Classes VII to IX in the CRPF Public School, Jawaharnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

55. The petitioner has also relied upon various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his contention that he possesses the requisite eligibility for enrollment as an advocate. It is also seen that respondent No.1, has filed an additional counter-affidavit, to which the petitioner has filed his reply/rejoinder.

56. It is contended that Rule 5 stipulates that a candidate must have completed 10+2 Higher Secondary or an equivalent qualification before pursuing a graduation degree. According to respondent No.1, the said qualification constitutes the minimum eligibility for admission to the three-year LL.B. course. The requirement is intended to ensure a sequential progression in education, which is considered essential for maintaining the academic and professional standards expected in the legal profession.

57. It is further contended that the explanation to Rule 5 clarifies that candidates who directly obtain graduation or post-graduation degrees through Open University systems, without first obtaining the foundational 10+2 qualification, are ineligible for admission to law courses.

58. The admitted facts are that the petitioner completed his 10th Class in the year 2015 and +2 in the year 2017. Thereafter, he joined the fiveyear integrated law degree course in the year 2019 and completed the said course in August, 2024.

59. The contention of the petitioner is that he completed his +2 qualification, which is the immediate qualification preceding admission to the five-year integrated LL.B. course, through the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), under the distance/open schooling system. After completing the five-year integrated law degree programme, the petitioner submitted an application before respondent No.4 seeking enrolment.

60. However, the respondents, particularly respondent Nos.3 and 4, relying upon the ratio laid down by this Court in W.P. No.597 of 2020 and batch, by judgment dated 28.12.2022, and in W.P.No.45800 of 2022 and batch, dated 20.10.2023, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not eligible to pursue the five-year integrated law degree course under Rule 5 of the Legal Education Rules, 2008, on the ground that he had not completed his 10+2 qualification through the regular mode.

61. On the other hand, the petitioner contended that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments is not applicable to the facts of the present case and according to him, the said judgments are distinguishable on facts and do not govern the present case.

62. The petitioner specifically contended that the expression “regular programme” occurring in Rule 5(a) of the Legal Education Rules, 2008, as well as the relevant UGC Regulations, has no application to the present case, since he pursued the integrated five-year law degree course after completion of 10+2, and admission to such integrated fiveyear course is specifically governed by Rule 5(b) of the Legal Education Rules, 2008.

63. The petitioner further contended that the Convener of TS LAWCET, 2019, after verification of his educational certificates, certified that he was eligible to appear for and pursue the five-year integrated law course. This circumstance itself distinguishes the present case from the facts considered by this Court in W.P.No.597 of 2020 and batch and the other connected writ petitions.

64. It is also contended by the petitioner, who appeared as party-inperson, that Rule 5(a) and Rule 5(b) operate in different fields and that, having regard to the facts of the present case, Rule 5(b), and not Rule 5(a), governs his eligibility. According to him, the explanation to Rule 5 cannot be applied in a manner so as to deny him eligibility when he had completed the requisite foundational education and thereafter successfully completed the five-year integrated law degree course.

65. For the sake of convenience and for proper appreciation of the controversy, Rules 5(a) and 5(b) of the Legal Education Rules, 2008, are extracted hereinbelow:

               Rule 5 — Eligibility for Admission

               5(a) Three Year Law Degree Course:

               “An applicant who has graduated in any discipline of knowledge from a University established by an Act of Parliament or by a State legislature or an equivalent national institution recognized as a Deemed to be University or foreign University recognized as equivalent to the status of an Indian University by an authority competent to declare equivalence, may apply for a three years' degree program in law leading to conferment of LL.B. degree on successful completion of the regular program conducted by a University whose degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.”                   5(b) Integrated Degree Program:

               “An applicant who has successfully completed Senior Secondary School course ('+2') or equivalent (such as 11+1, 'A' level in Senior School Leaving certificate course) from a recognized University of India or outside or from a Senior Secondary Board or equivalent, constituted or recognized by the Union or by a State Government or from any equivalent institution from a foreign country recognized by the government of that country for the purpose of issue of qualifying certificate on successful completion of the course, may apply for and be admitted into the program of the Centres of Legal Education to obtain the integrated degree in law with a degree in any other subject as the first degree from the University whose such a degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.”

66. Upon perusal of Rules 5(a) and 5(b), it is evident that both provisions prescribe the educational qualifications required for admission to the respective law courses, namely, the three-year LL.B. course or the integrated five-year law degree course.

67. In the present case, it is admitted that the petitioner pursued his school education from the first class up to the ninth class through the regular mode. He thereafter completed his 10th Class through NIOS and subsequently completed his +2 qualification through the same institution under the open schooling/distance mode. Thereafter, he joined the five-year integrated law degree course through the regular mode and successfully completed the same.

68. The main contention of the petitioner is that, having completed the foundational stages of his school education and thereafter obtained the +2 qualification through NIOS, he was entitled to seek admission to the five-year integrated law course. It is further contended that, once he successfully completed the recognized five-year integrated law degree course, he satisfied the educational qualification contemplated for enrolment under the Advocates Act, 1961.

69. No doubt, the explanation to Rule 5 of the Legal Education Rules, 2008, deals with the eligibility of applicants who have obtained their 10+2 Higher Secondary pass certificate or first degree certificate after prosecuting studies through distance or correspondence mode. It further clarifies that applicants who have obtained 10+2, graduation or post-graduation through an open university system directly, without possessing the basic qualification required for prosecuting such studies, shall not be eligible for admission to law courses.

70. Applying the said explanation to the facts of the present case, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner obtained his 10+2 qualification without possessing the basic qualification required for prosecuting such studies. Admittedly, the petitioner had undergone school education from the first class up to the 9th class through the regular mode and thereafter completed the 10th Class and +2 qualifications through NIOS. Thus, the petitioner had the requisite foundational educational background before pursuing the +2 qualification.

71. It is further contended by the petitioner that neither the Advocates Act, 1961, nor the Legal Education Rules, 2008, define the expression “basic qualification”. Owing to the absence of a statutory definition, Law Universities and Colleges had adopted various interpretations of Rule 5 and had, in some cases, denied admission to candidates who obtained their 10+2 and first degree through distance, correspondence or open schooling modes.

72. It is further contended by the petitioner that respondent No.3, pursuant to the meeting of its Legal Education Committee dated 30.04.2017, issued a clarification regarding the scope of “basic qualification”, which was also noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & others ([2024] 2 S.C.R. 1136), wherein the relevant paragraph is extracted below:

               “50. The appropriate authority cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative actions. However, it is open to it to issue instructions to fill up the gaps and supplement the rules where they are silent on any particular point. 22 Such instructions have a binding force provided they are subservient to the statutory provisions and have been issued to fill up the gaps between the statutory provisions.”

73. Reliance is also placed on the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, in Vishnu v. Bar Council of India and others (W.P.No.6752 of 2021), the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

               23. The words "basic qualification" appearing in the explanation to Rule 5 is the subject matter of consideration. "Basic qualification" is not defined under the Rules or the Act. In an Open University, for an admission to the Commerce A person having qualification of H.S.C. or equivalent examination or is graduation course, the criterion are provided. or a Government recognized 11th Standard Passed, certificate/ diploma of two years after S.C.C., are eligible for admission, and a person who had undergone a preparatory programme of Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik with minimum 40 marks is also eligible for admission to the first year degree certificate course. Equivalence is provided to the said courses.

               24. Under Government Resolution dated 20/5/2011, the Government of Maharashtra has granted equivalence of 10th and 12th to those who have passed preparatory programme and first year of graduation. The preparatory programme would be the basic course for securing admission to the first degree course in an open University. The basic course for first degree certificate would be different for different institutions. The Bar Council has not restricted the admission to the law degree course to the students passing from a regular University only. Even a student graduating in any discipline of knowledge from a equivalent national institution recognized as a deemed to be University or even a foreign University recognized as equivalent to the status of an Indian University by an authority competent to declare equivalence can apply for three year degree programme in law. It is not necessary that a foreign University recognized as equivalent to the status of an Indian University may require 10 + 2 as a basic qualification for the first degree course. A person who has completed 10 + 2 or equivalent is also considered eligible for admission to the five year integrated law degree course as per Rule 5(b).

               25. The aspect of basic qualification appearing in explanation would differ from University to University and course to course. The basic qualification for first degree course in an Open University would be the preparatory course and/or 12th Standard passed. The basic qualification as is appearing in explanation will have to be given a wider interpretation and cannot be given a restricted interpretation. If restricted interpretation is given to the words "basic qualification" appearing in explanation, then the same would not be in tune and consonance with the main rule. A person who has completed the preparatory programme course from Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik and who has also completed 10 + 2 from any Board, is eligible for admission to the first degree course in branch of Arts, Commerce, Science. If the restrictive meaning is given to the basic qualification, then a student who has passed graduation from the open University and had earlier completed 10 + 2 from S.S.C. Board would be eligible for admission to the three year law course, but a person who has been admitted to the first degree course in the open University after passing the preparatory programme for the said course, would not be eligible. The same cannot be the intention of the legislature.

Wherein, the Hon’ble Full Bench observed that the expression “basic qualification” occurring in the explanation to Rule 5 is not defined under the Rules or the Act and that the term was capable of ambiguity. The Court also referred to the clarification issued by the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India pursuant to its meeting held on 30.04.2017.

74. As per the said clarification, the basic qualification contemplated under Rule 5 would mean that the 10th Class qualification, which must be followed by +2. In other words, a person seeking admission to the five-year integrated law course must have first passed the 10th Class, which constitutes the basic qualification for pursuing the subsequent +2 course. The clarification further recognized that the 10th, 12th (+2) and graduation qualifications could be obtained through distance, correspondence or open schooling modes.

75. Universities and TS LAWCET authorities are concerned only with admission to the law course, whereas enrolment as an advocate is governed by Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and falls within the statutory jurisdiction of the State Bar Council.

76. Having been permitted to pursue and successfully complete the five-year integrated law course, having obtained 10+2 through NIOS and cleared the All India Bar Examination, the petitioner’s eligibility ought not to be retrospectively invalidated solely on the ground of the mode through which his school-level qualification was obtained. Such rejection of enrolment is hence contrary to the statutory scheme and the clarification issued by the competent authority.

77. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between the provisions governing admission to a law degree course and those governing admission/enrolment as an advocate. Rule 5 of the Bar Council of India’s Rules of Legal Education, 2008 prescribes the eligibility for admission to the three-year LL.B. course and the five-year integrated law degree programme, whereas the qualifications for admission as an advocate on a State roll are principally prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

78. The first proviso to Rule 5 makes it clear that applicants who have obtained their +2 Higher Secondary pass certificate or first degree certificate after prosecuting studies through distance or correspondence mode are also to be considered eligible for admission to the integrated five-year course or the three-year LL.B. course, as the case may be. The said proviso is clarificatory in nature and removes any doubt regarding the treatment of qualifications obtained through distance or correspondence mode by recognizing them for the purpose of admission subject to the other requirements of the Rules.

79. On a combined reading of Rule 5, its proviso and explanation, it is therefore evident that prosecution of studies through distance, correspondence or open schooling mode, by itself, does not render a candidate ineligible for admission to a law course, provided the candidate possesses the requisite foundational qualification prescribed under the Rules.

80. Thus, the fact that the petitioner obtained his 10th Class and +2 qualifications through NIOS cannot be treated as insufficient to disqualify him, particularly when it is not disputed that he had undergone his foundational schooling up to the ninth class through the regular mode and thereafter, successfully completed 10th, +2 and the recognized five-year integrated law degree course. Having considered the aforesaid provisions, namely, Rule 5 of the Legal Education Rules and Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

81. It is also pertinent to note that, subsequent to completion of the law degree, the petitioner appeared for and successfully cleared the All India Bar Examination. The petitioner’s application for enrolment, however, has not been considered solely on the ground that the qualification possessed by the petitioner does not satisfy the requirement contemplated under the applicable rules, which requirement is intended to ensure a sequential progression in education.

82. In view of the above, this Court finds that the principle laid down in the judgments relied upon by the respondents cannot be mechanically applied. The said decisions primarily deal with cases where a candidate obtained a degree through the Open University system without first acquiring the foundational qualification of 10+2, thereby lacking the basic qualification prescribed for pursuing the subsequent course of study.

83. The Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in G.S. Jagadeesh v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai (AIR 2018 Mad 243), and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Katroth Pradeep Rathod v. The Bar Council of India and others (2nd cited supra), relied upon by the respondents, are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the present case in their entirety. Those decisions principally concern the eligibility of a candidate whose qualifying degree immediately preceding admission to the law course was obtained through an impermissible mode, particularly in circumstances where the candidate had not acquired the foundational qualification necessary for pursuing that course. The present case is materially different, as the petitioner had acquired the requisite foundational qualification and had thereafter successfully completed the five-year integrated law degree course.

84. The facts of the present case stand on a different footing and the petitioner had acquired the requisite foundational education through the regular mode, having studied in the CRPF Public School during the relevant classes, and thereafter completed his Class X and 10+2 examinations through NIOS. Thus, the petitioner cannot be said to have entered the integrated law degree course without possessing the foundational qualification required for pursuing such course.

85. In such circumstances, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner did not possess the requisite foundational education for admission to the five-year integrated law degree course, and that his application for enrolment could therefore be rejected on that ground, cannot be accepted. Such an approach would not be consistent with the scheme of the Legal Education Rules or the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.

86. Having regard to the entire material placed before this Court and upon consideration of the respective contentions advanced by the petitioner and the respondents, this Bench is of the view that the nonconsideration of the petitioner’s representation seeking enrolment on the rolls of the Bar Council of Telangana is arbitrary and unreasonable.

87. Unlike those candidates, unlike the candidates in W.P.Nos.597 of 2020 and batch, who approached this Court and obtained interim orders and completed their LL.B., course. It is pertinent to mention here that similar situated candidates who were held to be ineligible for enrollment for an advocate, vide WP No.45880 of 2022, dated 20.10.2022 have preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.30217 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and got enrolled as advocate. It is also evident from the Bar Council of India proceedings, dated 02.04.2026, wherein it was transpired that the writ petition filed by the petitioner therein was disposed by the learned Single Judge, thereby making a reference of the issue to the Division Bench of the High Court with the following issue “Whether the candidates who have pursued 10+2 course through open university/NIOS and integrated 5 year law (10+2+5) are eligible for enrolment as advocate as per Rule-5 of the Rules 2008.?” Thus, the matter was thereafter take up by the Division Bench took note of the submission made by the similar candidates whose matter were pending in the Hon’ble Supreme on similar issue and out of the said 5 cases, 4 in cases pertaining to Mr. STS Gladies, Mr. Waheed Shaik, Mr. J. Ganesh Kumar & Mr. Srikanth and whose SLP were pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were granted enrolment by Telangana, State Bar Council by virtue of interim ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench further held that the aforesaid four candidates were granted enrolment and there was no reason why the same should be denied to the petitioner therein.

88. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a valid case for consideration of his application for enrolment on the rolls of the Bar Council of Telangana. Considering the entire gamut of the case with the relevant provisions, rules and the decisions referred to, this Bench is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought in the Writ Petition.

89. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s application for enrolment and enroll the petitioner on the rolls of the Bar Council of Telangana which shall be processed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.