The Supreme Court of India has urged the Central government to contemplate the formation of an expert committee dedicated to addressing various issues concerning legal education in the nation. This call to action emerged during the case Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v Union of India & Ors, which was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana.
Chief Justice Surya Kant emphasized the significance of such an expert body in today’s context, stating, “This is an important matter. The Union of India should consider it. This is an era of expert bodies. There should be an expert body on legal education.”
The Court’s recommendation came while deliberating on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The PIL advocates for the establishment of a Legal Education Commission or an expert committee. This proposed body would include educationists, jurists, retired judges, advocates, and professors to review and potentially reform the legal education framework in India. This includes an examination of the syllabus, curriculum, and duration of the Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) and Master of Laws (LL.M.) programs.
The PIL specifically questions the current structure of the 5-year integrated BA.LL.B. and BBA.LL.B. courses, arguing that their duration is excessive and imposes undue financial and time constraints on students. The plea also references the New Education Policy 2020, which supports 4-year graduation courses in all professional and academic fields, but notes that the Bar Council of India (BCI) has yet to take necessary steps to revise the legal education syllabus and duration.
The petition further asserts that the current 5-year integrated courses require students to study non-core subjects such as History, Sociology, Economics, and Political Science, which could be unnecessary for a law career. It suggests that a 4-year standalone law degree would suffice and align better with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
More Read
The plea also highlights concerns over the financial burdens placed on economically disadvantaged students, the extensive time devoted to non-law subjects and internships, and questions whether the 5-year course is essential for providing adequate legal education.
During the recent hearing, Advocate Upadhyay noted that neither the Centre, the Bar Council of India, nor the Law Commission of India had submitted their responses to the matter. As the case was not addressed, he requested that it be scheduled for discussion on Friday.
