Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

Recently, the Delhi High Court, dismissed a petition, while emphasizing the need for broad education encompassing various subjects for law students to tackle the complexities of cases effectively. The observations were recorded in a PIL filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking directions against the central government to establish a Legal Education Commission to assess the viability of a four-year Bachelor of Law Course.

The bench, headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and comprising Justice Manmeet PS Arora observed, ‘In fact, I wish I had started Economics in college. How many times I'm struggling, I'm trying to understand certain concepts? Lawyers have to make it simple for me’.

Upadhyay also urged the court to instruct the Bar Council of India (BCI) to form an Expert Committee comprising Retired Judges, Jurists & Educationists to evaluate the alignment of a five-year Bachelor of Law Course with the National Education Policy (NEP).

He argued that the NEP favored four-year undergraduate programs, yet the BCI had neither evaluated the five-year BA-LLB program nor introduced a four-year Bachelor of Law program. He further asserted that the proposed course emphasizes internships during the final two years, allowing students to engage in internships without the burden of academic obligations.

Upadhyay emphasized that if the primary objective is knowledge, law courses should solely focus on law subjects, excluding non-essential subjects like Economics, Sociology, History, Political Science, and English, which are part of the curriculum in the 5-year program offered by NLU Nagpur. Out of the 50 examinations, only 33 were related to law, while the remaining 17 were deemed irrelevant, he further added.

Upadhyay also argued that consolidating the dual degree program into a single degree would enable economically disadvantaged students to pursue a prestigious legal education at reduced tuition fees. This alteration would attract highly motivated students genuinely interested in law, allowing them to complete 20 law subjects within four years.

He further contended that commencing a legal career at an earlier age would be advantageous for talented students, citing the example of the late Mr. Ram Jethmalani, who obtained his law degree at 17 and established his law firm at 18.

The court acknowledged that Mr. Jethmalani's generation invested more time in education compared to the present, staying updated with developments even after years of practice. It emphasized the disparity between the study habits of Jethmalani's generation and the current one.

During the court session, Upadhyay requested to withdraw the petition to pursue it before the appropriate authorities, a request that the court granted.

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v Union of India