High Court in Himachal Pradesh refuses admission for man who enrolled in 3-year LL.B program before obtaining his degree.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused to allow Inderpal Singh to enroll as a lawyer, following a ruling that his admission to a three-year LL.B course before completing his graduation was in violation of the law.
The case was heard in the High Court by a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma. Advocate Arsh Chauhan represented the college where Singh studied, while Senior Advocate Sunil Mohan Goel and advocate Raman Jamalta represented the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh.
Inderpal Singh had secured admission for the three-year law course before completing his graduation, a move that the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh found to be in contravention of the law. Singh had also given an undertaking to the law college that if he failed to complete his graduation, his provisional admission may be revoked.
However, Singh failed a paper in his final year of undergraduate studies in 2014 and was made to reappear for the exam the next year. Despite this, he went ahead and secured admission for the law course.
The Court's judgement, which can be read in the [Read Order], stated that Inderpal Singh, being ineligible, did not have the locus or right to seek enrolment as an advocate. The Court referred to the Rules of Legal Education and the Advocates Act in its judgement. The specific rule under the Advocates Act and Rules of Legal Education of 2008 states that a person can be admitted to the three-year LL.B course only after passing the bachelor's degree.
Key points from recent judicial interpretations, particularly the Himachal Pradesh High Court rulings in 2025, emphasize that the candidate must possess a bachelor's degree at the time of admission to the three-year LL.B course. Admission before graduation is illegal, and clearing the graduation exams after such admission does not retrospectively validate the earlier illegal admission. There is no provision in the Legal Education Rules or Advocates Act allowing post facto approval or relaxation of this eligibility criterion.
Courts uphold strict compliance to maintain academic and professional standards in legal education and practice. Allowing admissions of ineligible persons in violation of the law would be an illegality.
Senior Advocate Ajay Sharma and advocate Atharv Sharma represented Inderpal Singh in the case, while Advocate Nitin Thakur represented Himachal Pradesh University. The Bench upheld the order of a single-judge of the High Court and rejected Inderpal Singh's appeal. The Court dismissed the plea of Inderpal Singh, citing his known and admitted wrongs or inactions.
In summary, the Rule of Legal Education, 2008 mandates that completion of a bachelor's degree is a mandatory prerequisite for admission to a three-year LL.B course, and violation of this rule leads to invalid admission and disqualification from enrolment as an advocate.
The High Court's judgement emphasizes the importance of completing a bachelor's degree before pursuing a three-year LL.B course, highlighting education-and-self-development and general-news relevance. The case of Inderpal Singh served as a reminder that violations of the Rules of Legal Education and the Advocates Act can result in an invalid admission and disqualification from enrolment as an advocate, reiterating the desire for strict compliance in legal education for academic and professional standards.
