Standard of Legal Education in India vis-a-vis 184th LCI Report: A Reality Check

The Authors, Anushka Ukrani, Himanshu Anand, Namrata Chakraborty, Tamanna Bandyopadhyay, Teresa Jijo are LL.M Students from Himachal Pradesh National Law University and Symbiosis Law School Pune.

Overview

The Legal education in India was formalized with the establishment of the first professorship of law at the government Elphinstone College. At that time, legal education was largely influenced by the English Common Law traditions which were generally out of place in the Indian context. As a result, Legal education turned into rote learning.[1] People practicing Law were mostly playing technical role.

Since then the periphery of legal education has been subjected to continuous evolution. In 1967, a resolution was passed by the BCI, thus implementing the 3 year LL.B programme with the object of imparting professional training. In its efforts to improve the standards of legal education in India BCI introduced the 5 year integrated course. Moving away from the traditional pattern of rote-learning, and in consonance with its objective to inculcate professional skills the National law school of India University was established. However, It has been repeatedly pointed out by the BCI that the curriculum of NLUs is more suited to the private corporate sector which is opposed to its object of producing trained professionals for the bar and judiciary.[2]

The focus of legal education needs to shift from technical training to imparting professional skills. A law student must be able to keep himself detached from the problem and objectively resolve it. He must have the knowledge and the ability to understand and convey. Only then will he be able to address social problems.[3]

This article intends to discuss the statutory framework and various reforms that have been made towards improvement of legal education and also propose certain additional recommendations which will go a long way furthering the objective of legal education.

Statutory Framework Governing Legal education in India

A sound legal education is an essential condition to ensure the required legal services for proper maintenance and administration of justice in society. Considering this, it is the duty of the Bar Council of India (BCI) to “promote legal education” and it is entitled “to lay down standards of such education”.[4] However, this has to be done in consultation with the universities and State Bar Councils. In pursuance of its powers under The Advocates Act, 1961 the BCI has enacted The BCI Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (“the rules”)[5] for ensuring that the standards of legal education are maintained.

Salient features of the rules:

• Under Rule 4, Two courses of law i.e the 3 year and the double-degree integrated 5 year course have been recognized.
• Rule 5 provides for the eligibility criteria for admission to these courses and disallows candidates who have completed 10+2 and UG/PG from open universities without having any basic qualification for pursuing these studies from taking admission to these law courses.[6]
• The rules also specify the minimum passing marks and the minimum standards of infrastructure that any institution imparting legal education must maintain.
• Rule 14 provides that all institutes imparting legal education require a prior approval of the BCI for the purpose of enrolment.
• Under Rule 20, the BCI must constitute an inspection and monitoring committee for the purpose of inspecting new or existing institutions. Any university that seeks recognition of its law degree is required to be inspected by this committee to ensure that it possesses the requisite infrastructural facilities, number of teachers, library facilities, legal aid clinics, moot training, etc.[7]
• The inspection committee has even been empowered to conduct surprise inspections under Rule 19.
• Rule 28 provides for an accreditation and performance rating system for all universities.
• Schedule II of the rules provides a list of mandatory courses that universities are required to offer. However, it does not provide any course outlines and the universities are free to develop their own curriculum.
• Every center of legal education is required to maintain and run a legal aid clinic under the supervision of a senior faculty member.

184^th LCI Report - Recommendations and Shortcomings

With a vision to entrust conjoint responsibility on the BCI and UGC in structuring the standards of professional legal education, the Law Commission of India prepared a 5-chapter Working Papers in 1999, proposing certain amendments to the Advocates Act, 1961 and inviting suggestions from various stakeholders.[8] To emphasize the importance of legal education in the foundation of the judicial system, the 16^th LCI prepared the 184^th Report on the Legal Education & Professional Training including the proposals for amendments to the Advocates Act, 1961 and the UGC Act, 1956 etc. under the chairmanship of Hon’ble Justice M. Jagannadha Rao.

The 184^th LCI Report, 2002 delved deeper into the standards of legal education to broadly address the following inhibitors responsible for decelerating the quality of legal education in India:

1. Absence of definition of the ‘standards of legal education’ in the Advocates Act, 1961;
2. Due to the overriding effect of the standards stipulated in the UGC Act, the BCI is unable to impose any mandatory standards for the legal education;
3. Lack of harmony between the domains of BCI and UGC;
4. Inadequate representation in the BCI Legal Education Committee (LEC);
5. Prioritizing the theories of law over the art of advocacy;

Subsequently, to encounter the adverse effect of the above inhibitors on the legal education, the Commission has provided (33) recommendations (divided into five heads):

1. Formation of UGC Legal Education Committee(LEC) and Harmonious Consultation between the BCI and UGC: With the recommended amendment of s.5A of the UGC Act, 1956, the UGC was entrusted the responsibility to constitute a 10-membered UGC Committee on Legal Education(LEC) comprising of six academicians in the level of Professors, Deans or Principals or of equal rank, two retired law teachers of similar ranks and two Directors/Vice-Chancellors of statutory Law Universities.[9] The LEC of the BCI has to take the final decision after consultation with the State Bar Councils and the LEC of the UGC. [10]
2. Restructuring the Legal Education Committee(LEC) of BCI: With an aim to provide representation from different classes of person in the LEC of the Bar Council of India amendment in s. 10(2)(b) is recommended, which should comprise of five members from BCI, one retired Supreme Court Judge (Chairman), one retired Chief Justice/Judge of a High Court and three academicians in law nominated by UGC and three academicians nominated by BCI, one of them must be Director/Vice-Chancellor of a statutory Law University.
3. Mandating training for law students, teachers and legal professionals: The LCI report recommended one-year apprenticeship for law graduates in the Chamber of an Advocate having ten years of experience. Further, the report recommended introduction of ADR training to the LL.B students compulsorily and the lawyers as well as the judicial officers as short-term or certificate or diploma courses.[11] Additionally, the professional training facility was recommended to law teachers by commencing at least four colleges by the Central Government in consultation with BCI and UGC.
4. Transforming the Mac Crate Report[12] Recommendations into Reality: To incorporate essence of the Mac Crate Report of ‘Standards of Legal Education, Legal Skills and Values’, the BCI was suggested to lay down rules, prescribing standards for the students in law courses which form the foundation for legal practice and not otherwise. To promote excellence in legal education, accreditation system,[13] legal education libraries[14] and the appointment of Bar members and Retired Judges as adjunct faculties were also recommended.[15]
5. Introducing Reforms in the Process of Permissions and Inspections: The Report proposed provisions in the Advocates Act for inspection process and mandatory prior permission by BCI before initiating a law college or university offering a law degree and enabling for Bar enrolment.[16]  

Progress Report on Implementation of Suggested Reforms

Following the 184^th LCI Report,[17] we witness a trail of recommendations carried by the National Knowledge Commission (NKC)[18] in 2005, the Three Member Committee on Reform of Legal Education arisen from ‘BCI v. Bonnie FOI Law College & Ors.’[19], with respect to the reforms in legal education and profession in India. Therefore, we attempted to assess the progress in implementation of those recommendations.

• The statutory provisions of Legal Education witnessed no reform in the constitution of LEC. Neither s.5A in the UGC Act, 1956 was added nor s. 10(2)(b) Advocates Act, 1961 got amended to adopt the revised composition. However, a certain extent of harmonious consultation between the BCI and UGC could be observed under R. 8 of the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (‘2008 Rules’) that mandates UGC to set the minimum standard of designated first degree course in integrated program.
• Despite several universities conducting training sessions for their faculties and law students, the majority law colleges are not armed with any training sessions or workshops which unfortunately deprive the teachers and law students of acquiring teaching methods, basic technologies and advocacy skills, respectively.
• While assessing the status of implementation of the Mac Crate Report, we observe contrary scenario in curriculum, examination methods and learning the professional skills as suggested are lacking due to the deficiency in physical infrastructure and decreased funding, which nonetheless create a gap in terms of facilities, faculties and training exposure.
• Although the NKC and LCI report continuously stressed upon the methods of retaining talented faculty and developing a competitive research environment, largely the current status neither recognizes the issue regarding the lack of quality research nor does it implement the appointment of retired judges in the post of adjunct professor.
• Although the recommendations relating to BCI permissions and inspections are duly implemented through Rules 8, 17 and 18 the 2008 Rules, majority law schools exist in small buildings without any proper library or moot court room now-a-days.

Additional Recommendations

Even though sufficient number of recommendations exist, no significant change would be spotlighted unless the same are implemented. In addition to the recommendations already discussed, we wish to propose the following to enhanced the standards of legal education:

• Indian National Bar Association Campus Ambassador programme

While the Association seeks to engage with students directly by coordinating with campus ambassadors across law schools, the same is not practiced in reality. By appointing campus ambassadors through state bar councils, the BCI will be able to keep close contact with the students, by way of arranging sessions/webinars by eminent advocates, while also keeping the students abreast with the functioning of the future council they shall be a part of, after graduation.

• 1-1 Mentorship

Professors must attempt to provide mentorship to the students while they try to navigate through their interests in the law school. The student-teacher ratio may vary across law schools, but mentorship must be a prime focus wherein the students’ maybe guided based their career goals.

• SGL Learning

Promotion of learning via small groups must be encouraged which facilitates the students an opportunity to come out of their comfort zones, and learn the art of communicating and negotiating skills - a law graduate should possess.

• Equal focus on Case learning

Even though lecture method of teaching is the most commonly-used technique, law schools must utilize other methods e.g. case learning, group discussion etc. as recommended by the 184th LCI Report. Case-studies and mooting are examples of how students can learn to harness their analytical skills. This would ensure participation, as opposed to the present practice of conducting the internal moots, wherein the majority are less reluctant to participate.

• Quality of LL.M

Attitude of students planning to pursue LL.M is mostly driven by their interest to claim another degree. Law schools must hence ensure that quality of LL.M is not compromised by lowering the standards for ease of degree acquisition.  

• Electives in School

Basics of Law must be included in the school curriculum, which not only would encourage further studies in a career option, but also help in reforming the society’s perception towards law as a career.

• Advocate training

While advocates enrolled with their respective states are provided training in some states, others are not. The training thus mandated by the BCI must be followed by states uniformly. With the advancement in technology, the legal world must also embrace the tech-based practical knowledge through constant training and workshops.

Conclusion

To develop a legal education system compatible with the requirements of the 21st Century, it is pertinent to note that changes so introduced are well received by the society, students and most importantly, the teachers. From law being one of the most noble professions once, to the negative perception that exists now, it is important at this point that recommendations do not just exist in papers to ensure that the system produces fierce, well-shaped, outspoken lawyers.

_________________________________________________

References:

[1] Arthur Taylor Von Mehran, law and legal education in Indian: Some Observation, Harvard Law Review, Apr. 1965, 1180.

[2] NR Madhava Menon, The transformation of Indian Legal Education, Harvard Law school Program on legal profession, 2012.

[3] AM Varkey, Learning objectives of Legal education in India: A Critique, Cochin University Law Review, 1991, 444-454. 

[4] The Advocates Act, 1961, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1961, Section 7(1)(h),  

[5] Bar Council Of India Rules, Part IV, 2008. 

[6] Rule 5 (Explanation), Rules of Legal education, 2008. 

[7] Rule 19, Rules of Legal Education, 2008. 

[8] 184th Law Commission Report (December, 2002),  ¶1.0, p.6,  Accessed through http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/184threport-parti.pdf (Last accessed on September 18, 2020).

[9] Ibid at ¶ 4.14 &4.21.

[10] Advocates Act, 1961, s. 7(1)(h). 

[11] Ibid at ¶ 6.5, 6.6, 6.11. 

[12] Ibid at Chapter V,  Page Nos. 50-61. 

[13] Ibid at ¶ 5.22.

[14] Ibid at ¶ 9.15.

[15] Ibid at ¶ 7.12.

[16] Ibid at ¶ 8.12, 8.13. 

[17]184th Law Commission Report (December, 2002), Available at http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/184threport-parti.pdf (Last accessed on 18^th Sepetmber, 2020).

[18]  National Knowledge Commission, Report to the Nation 2007, Available at http://www.dauniv.ac.in/downloads/NKC_Report07.pdf (Last accessed on 19^th September, 2020).

[19]SLP (C) No. 22337 of 2008 (Decided on March 17, 2008).