The Supreme Court issued notices to the Union Government, University Grants Commission (UGC), Bar Council of India (BCI), and Law Commission of India, seeking their responses on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) urging structural reforms in legal education. The PIL calls for the establishment of a dedicated legal education commission to revisit the syllabus, curriculum, and course duration of LLB and LLM programmes. The Court also directed that all similar matters pending on the issue be clubbed and listed for hearing on September 9.
The PIL, filed by Advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, challenges the continued implementation of five-year integrated law courses like BA-LLB and BBA-LLB, and the standard three-year LLB programme, arguing that they are disproportionately lengthy and financially burdensome for students, particularly from economically weaker sections.
The petitioner emphasized that India's New Education Policy (NEP) 2020 encourages four-year undergraduate programs for both academic and professional streams. However, despite this paradigm shift, the BCI has not revised the existing legal education framework to align with the NEP.
The plea argues that while engineering programs such as B.Tech, even in premier institutions like IITs, are completed within four years with focused and intensive curricula, the five-year integrated law programs cover both legal studies and non-legal subjects such as Arts or Commerce, which are allegedly superfluous to the professional requirements of a law graduate.
The petitioner contends that this outdated structure imposes a significant financial and temporal burden on students, delaying their entry into the workforce by up to two years. This burden, he argues, disproportionately affects students from lower and middle-income families.
The PIL further underscores that reforms in legal education are imperative to attract and retain top talent in the legal profession, and that a specialized commission of experts should be formed to propose necessary curriculum revisions in tune with global standards and evolving legal landscapes.
Taking note of the issues raised, the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi sought the views of all concerned authorities and scheduled the matter for hearing on September 9. The Court observed that the concerns over the duration, relevance, and financial implications of current legal education merit careful consideration and institutional response.
In a procedural direction, the Court also instructed the registry to consolidate all related matters and ensure their joint listing on the next date of hearing.
Picture Source :
