Safiya Malik

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that a candidate who was admitted to a three-year LLB course without first obtaining a Bachelor's degree was not entitled to be enrolled as an advocate under the statutory scheme governing legal education and enrolment. The Court dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging the rejection of enrolment by the Himachal Pradesh Bar Council, affirming that admission obtained in contravention of mandatory eligibility norms could not be regularized or cured.

The Division Bench found that the enrolment committee and the Bar Council acted within the bounds of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules. Citing the mandatory nature of eligibility conditions, the Court stated that ignorance or hardship could not override statutory prescriptions. The judgment affirmed that no vested right accrued from an admission granted contrary to law, and the appellant, having secured LLB admission while ineligible, could not claim enrolment as an advocate thereafter. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with liberty to seek alternate remedies if so advised.

Also Read: Registered Will Raises Presumption Of Genuineness | Supreme Court Confirms Second Wife’s Exclusive Ownership, Says Burden To Disprove Validity Lies On Opponent

The appellant had completed his B.A. First Year in February 2011 and the Second Year in July 2013 from Government College, Nahan. For the B.A. Third Year, he failed to clear the Environmental Studies paper, resulting in a reappear-compartment. He cleared this reappear in March 2015, and the university awarded him the B.A. Third Final certificate on 27 July 2015. Prior to obtaining this certificate, in June 2014, he was admitted to the Three-Year LLB Degree Course at a college affiliated with Himachal Pradesh University. He submitted an undertaking on 9 September 2014 acknowledging that his admission was provisional and subject to cancellation if he failed to qualify his Bachelor's degree.

He subsequently passed the LLB course on 17 November 2017 and applied for enrolment with the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh. Due to the irregularity in his graduation status at the time of LLB admission, no immediate decision was taken. Consequently, he filed a writ petition (CWP No. 1760 of 2018), which was disposed of after the Bar Council issued an order on 22 March 2023 refusing his enrolment. This prompted the appellant to file another writ petition (CWP No. 2915 of 2023) challenging the recommendations dated 17 March 2023 by the Enrolment Committee and the approval of the same by the General House of the Bar Council on 24 March 2023.

The Himachal Pradesh University submitted before the Writ Court that the appellant’s candidature was accepted on the recommendation of the college, as per Clause 6.15(a) of their regulations. The Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh stated in its affidavit that the appellant’s admission to the LLB course in 2014 occurred before he became a graduate in July 2015. Therefore, his admission violated the norms set out under the Advocates Act and the Rules of Legal Education.

Respondents 2 and 3 (the college) admitted that their principal, who had been unwell and later left the position, granted admission to the appellant in LLB based on his application, possibly under a bonafide mistake. The college conceded that the appellant was ineligible at the time of admission due to the pending Environmental Studies paper. They also clarified that the college had not been granting new admissions for the last two years due to infrastructure issues following an eviction order.

The Court examined the statutory provisions including Sections 7, 24, and 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 issued by the Bar Council of India. It recorded "The admission to Three Year LLB Degree Course is to be granted after obtaining Bachelor’s Degree in any discipline of studies from a university or any other qualification considered as equivalent thereto by the Bar Council of India."

The Court noted that under Rule 2(vi), Rule 4(a), and Rule 5(a) of the Legal Education Rules, a candidate must first be a graduate before being admitted to the three-year LLB course. It stated "Perusal of Rule 2(vi) and Rule 4(a) and Rule 5(a) of the Legal Education Rules 2008, prescribes that a person has to satisfy twin conditions before enrolment as an advocate..."

The Court found that the appellant’s admission was in clear violation of these rules. It stated: "In these circumstances, once for want of Graduation {BA, in this case} the appellant's admission to Three Year LLB Degree Course... was contrary to and dehors the Rules..."

On the argument that the appellant was not at fault, the Court recorded: "It is the own case of appellant-writ petitioner that though he appeared in BA Third Year Examination in March 2014 but he was given reappear-compartment in the paper of Environmental Studies..." and that "... the appellant knew about his ineligibility at the time of his admission..."

The Court rejected the argument that the Bar Council could regularize the irregularity. It stated: "Prescription of eligibility for admission to a course flowing from Statutory Enactment or Rule issued thereunder has the force of law and such prescriptions cannot be diluted..."

Regarding the denial of a hearing by the Bar Council, the Court held: "...the indisputable/admitted ineligibility of the appellant-writ petitioner while securing admission to Three Year Law Course is enough to negate the plea of violation of principles of natural justice..."

The Court also distinguished the case law cited by the appellant, including A Sudha v. University of Mysore and Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University. It recorded: "The above contention of Learned Senior Counsel is misplaced, as the judgments... are not applicable in facts and circumstances of instant case."

The Court concluded by affirming the decision of the Learned Single Judge and upheld the orders of the Bar Council refusing enrolment. It stated: "Impugned Judgment dated 02.07.2024, passed by Learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2915 of 2023, In Re: Inderpal Singh versus Himachal Pradesh University & Ors., is upheld."

Also Read: Bombay High Court Declines Medical Examination of Elderly Woman Amid Inheritance Row | Appoints Court Officer as Guardian Ad-Litem to Avoid Conflict of Interest

It further recorded: "Impugned orders i.e. recommendations dated 17.03.2023 [Annexure P-2] made by Enrolment Committee and its approval by General House of Respondent No-4- Council on 24.03.2023 [Annexure P-1], refusing to enroll the appellant-petitioner as an Advocate, is upheld."

Additionally, the Court held that: "Directions contained in Para 5 of Impugned Judgment dated 02.07.2024 qua damages are reiterated; and/or to seek appropriate remedy, by way of Dispute Resolution Body of the Bar Council of India, if any {under Rule 43, of Rules of Legal Education}; if so desires."

The appeal was dismissed and the Court ordered: "In aforesaid terms, the instant appeal and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate; Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate; Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate.

Case Title: Inderpal Singh v. Himachal Pradesh University & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:24070

Case Number: LPA No: 295 of 2024

Bench: Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma