DU LL.M. Students Challenge Ban on Practising Law, Delhi HC Issues Notice

The Delhi High Court has recently issued notice on a plea filed by 32 LL.M. students of Delhi University challenging a condition introduced by the university that restricts enrolment in the programme to students who are engaged in any employment, trade, profession, business, or occupation.

Justice Vikas Mahajan has sought responses from Delhi University as well as the Bar Council of Delhi.

“Let a short affidavit be filed within two weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. Re-notify on 25.09.2025,” the Court directed in its order.

The petitioners, who are LL.M. students of the 2024-2026 batch at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, have challenged the condition as arbitrary, ultra vires, and unconstitutional.

“On the strength of this Notification, the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, by way of rules, imposed an affidavit requirement that compels LL.M. (2-year course) students to declare they will not practise law during the course of their studies. The Petitioners, who are already enrolled as advocates, submit that this condition is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and directly violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution,” the plea states.

It is further contended that the Bar Council of India (BCI), being the statutory body responsible for regulating legal education and the legal profession, has expressly resolved that practising advocates may pursue an LL.M. as regular students without suspending their practice.

According to the petitioners, the respondents’ mandatory affidavit condition infringes upon the exclusive domain of the BCI, undermining the statutory rights of advocates, including their right to practice under Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961. They argue that the notification issued under the Delhi University Act, 1922, being delegated legislation, cannot override or contravene the provisions of a central law, especially without express statutory backing.

The plea also cites the Supreme Court’s recent verdict in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, which mandated a minimum of three years of legal practice as a qualification to appear for judicial services examinations (Civil Judge, Junior Division).

Taking note of this requirement, the petitioners contend that the affidavit condition at Delhi University, which bars enrolled LL.M. students from practising in courts, places them at a gross disadvantage. “Now, two-year LL.M. students who are already enrolled with the Bar will have to wait until the completion of their postgraduate course before they can begin practice, thereby delaying the accrual of the mandatory three years’ experience,” the plea submits.

Highlighting that the restriction is in stark contrast to the position of students at other institutions, the plea states, “Other institutions, despite having more intensive and rigorous one-year LL.M. courses under tri-semester systems or otherwise, impose no such restriction on practising law. As a result, such students are able to simultaneously gain practical experience, putting them in a far more favourable position to meet eligibility criteria for judicial services and other professional opportunities.”

Stressing that the policy discriminates against Delhi University’s LL.M. students, the petitioners argue that it also undermines the value of its postgraduate legal education and effectively penalises students who aspire to join judicial services. Such manifest arbitrariness, they submit, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

“In Karan Antil v. High Court of Delhi, the Court has already upheld the right of practising advocates to simultaneously pursue an LL.M. This judgment, along with the BCI resolution, makes it clear that the condition imposed by the University of Delhi is both legally unsustainable and constitutionally impermissible,” the plea further states.

The petitioners submitted that they had given a detailed representation to Delhi University through its Vice-Chancellor, but no corrective steps were taken.

They have therefore sought the urgent intervention of the Court to declare the impugned Notification, which prevents them from practising in courts, as invalid, and to further declare the mandatory affidavit requirement unconstitutional.

Case Title: Harish and Others v. University of Delhi and Others

Order Date: 12 August 2025

Bench: Justice Vikas Mahajan