The Supreme Court of India on Monday expressed reluctance to interfere in the debate over the duration of the five-year integrated law course. The court said issues related to legal education involve many stakeholders and cannot be decided only through judicial orders.
The court made these observations while hearing a public interest litigation filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay. The petition seeks a reduction in the duration of the five-year integrated LLB programme to four years. It also asks for the creation of a Legal Education Commission that would review the current framework of legal education in India.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that legal education is an important subject. However, the court said decisions about the structure, syllabus, and duration of professional courses should involve academic institutions, regulators, and experts.
The bench stressed that improving the quality of legal education is more important than focusing only on the duration of the course. According to the court, students should learn about laws and legal systems properly, and educational institutions must ensure high standards of teaching.
The judges also noted that courts should not impose their views on such policy matters because several groups are involved in making decisions about education.
During the hearing, the bench explained that legal education reforms require discussion among many stakeholders. These include universities, academicians, jurists, lawyers, policy experts, and regulators.
The court said the judiciary is only one participant in this system. Therefore, it cannot alone decide how legal education should be structured.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said that discussions on the future of legal education should include experts from different backgrounds. These people understand the needs of students, the legal profession, and society.
The bench said the court cannot simply order changes in the duration of professional courses. Instead, such decisions should come from the concerned regulatory bodies and educational institutions.
The court also pointed out that organisations such as the Bar Council of India and universities play a major role in regulating legal education in the country. These bodies decide the syllabus, course structure, and professional standards for lawyers.
The bench suggested that if universities believe the current structure is not suitable, they should discuss the issue with regulators and propose reforms through proper channels.
ALSO READ: Israel launches ‘bomb shelter dating’ app during Iran war, sparks online backlash
In his petition, Ashwini Upadhyay argued that the five-year integrated law course discourages talented students from choosing the legal profession. He said most professional courses in India are structured for four years.
For example, many engineering programmes and other undergraduate professional degrees usually last four years. According to the petition, the longer law programme creates an extra financial and time burden for students.
Upadhyay told the court that a Legal Education Commission should be formed. This body, according to him, should include well-known jurists, academics, and legal experts who could review the entire system of legal education in India.
The proposed commission would study the syllabus, course duration, and overall structure of law programmes. It would also suggest reforms to improve legal education and attract talented students.
The petition also claims that the five-year course delays students’ entry into the workforce. Students must spend an additional year studying before they can start practicing law or working in the legal field.
According to the petition, this delay increases the cost of education, especially for students from middle-income and lower-income families. Many students may find it difficult to afford longer academic programmes.
Upadhyay also referred to the National Education Policy 2020 in his arguments. The policy promotes four-year undergraduate programmes in many academic and professional fields.
The petition argues that legal education regulators have not fully reviewed the law course structure in light of the recommendations of this policy.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice also spoke about the history of the five-year law programme in India. He said the concept did not start with the well-known national law schools.
According to him, the five-year integrated law course was first introduced by Maharshi Dayanand University in Rohtak in the early 1980s. The first batch of students reportedly began around 1982 or 1983.
The court questioned why universities that disagree with the current system cannot initiate changes themselves. The bench asked why a court order would be necessary if academic institutions believe reforms are needed.
Upadhyay responded that universities cannot independently change the duration of the law course because such decisions must be approved by the Bar Council of India.
The Bar Council of India regulates legal education and professional standards for lawyers in the country. Therefore, any major change in law programmes must be approved by the council.
While acknowledging that the issue raised in the petition is important, the Supreme Court indicated that the matter requires broader discussion rather than immediate judicial intervention.
The bench said that questions about education policy must be examined carefully because they affect thousands of students and the future of the legal profession.
At the end of the hearing, the court decided not to pass any immediate directions on the matter. Instead, it scheduled the case for further hearing in April 2026.
The debate over the duration of the integrated LLB programme continues among legal experts, students, and education policymakers. Many believe that reforms are necessary to improve the quality of legal education, while others argue that the current system already provides strong academic and professional training.
The Supreme Court’s remarks suggest that any major change in legal education will require detailed discussions among universities, regulators, and policymakers before a final decision can be made.
Copyright © © 2022 Copyright. All Rights Reserved with Arth Parkash