BREAKING: Supreme Court Refuses To Issue Notice On PIL Seeking Legal Education Commission

The Court instead ordered the matter to be tagged with a pending case concerning similar issues.

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the plea which calls for an overhaul of the LLB and LLM syllabus, curriculum, and duration in accordance with global standards and the National Education Policy.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner along with Upadhyay in person, stressed the importance of the matter, noting that legal education in India is outdated, costly, and unnecessarily lengthy.

“This is something important. In fact, my yoga teacher persuaded me to appear in this. He is struggling to afford five years of legal education for his daughter,” Singh submitted.

Justice Nath, however, remained unconvinced and questioned the urgency and gravity of the matter. “Really? You think something important is raised?” he asked pointedly.

Singh argued that countries like the UK offer a three-year law degree after high school, and that India’s five-year model was unnecessarily burdensome. He added that another Bench led by Justice Surya Kant is already examining the validity of the one-year LLM program and urged the Court to consider aligning Indian legal education with international standards.

Justice Nath was firm in his response, remarking, “All these decisions should be taken by the Bar Council of India.”

When Singh sought to express reservations about the BCI, Justice Nath interjected, saying, “The education ministry is there, let’s not get into all this.”

The Bench further asked if the petitioner was seeking a judicially framed policy or a directive to the government to form one.

Singh clarified that the plea was only for the formation of a Commission and suggested that the matter be tagged with the pending case Tamanna Chandan Chachlani v. Bar Council of India [WP(C) No. 70/2021], which deals with similar issues.

Agreeing with the request, the Court directed the tagging of the matter with the pending case but declined to issue notice at this stage.

“Tag kar denge, notice nahi karenge (We will tag the matter, not issue notice),” Justice Nath said.

The matter will now be considered along with the Tamanna Chandan Chachlani case, which is listed for hearing on July 29, 2025.

The PIL filed through Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay urges the Supreme Court to direct the Central Government to undertake reforms in legal education in light of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, aiming to make legal studies more inclusive, rational, and aligned with modern educational principles.

"It is very unfortunate that neither the Centre has constituted a Legal Education Commission on the lines of Medical Education Commission nor the Bar Council of India has constituted an Expert Committee of Jurists & Professors to review the subjects and the duration of the Course in letter and spirit of the New Education Policy 2020," the PIL reads.

The petitioner contends that the current five-year integrated law programmes such as BA-LLB and BBA-LLB are excessively long, financially burdensome, and academically inefficient. It is argues that the extended course duration, coupled with non-law subjects like Sociology, Political Science, History, and English, unnecessarily prolongs students’ educational journey without contributing significantly to their legal proficiency.

Quoting recent policy statements by the University Grants Commission (UGC), the PIL points out that students with four-year undergraduate degrees are now eligible to directly pursue PhD programmes and appear for the National Eligibility Test (NET), irrespective of their undergraduate stream. This development, the petitioner argues, highlights the flexibility promoted by the NEP 2020—a flexibility missing in legal education.

Citing a Hindustan Times news report dated April 21, 2024, the PIL underscores the shifting academic landscape and the failure of the Bar Council of India (BCI) to respond to such changes. It asserts that legal education has remained static even as other professional disciplines have undergone significant reform, especially in light of the NEP’s emphasis on multidisciplinary, flexible, and student-centric learning.

The petitioner raises concerns about the disproportionate financial burden imposed on students from lower and middle-income backgrounds, arguing that a five-year law programme effectively bars talented but economically disadvantaged students from entering the legal profession. In contrast, the petitioner notes, engineering degrees from premier institutions such as the IITs are completed within four years, with a more focused and streamlined curriculum.

The PIL also argues that subjects unrelated to law; such as Economics, Sociology, and History, are compulsorily taught during the first two years of integrated law programmes. At institutions like NLU Nagpur, only 32 out of 50 exams conducted over five years are related to law, while the remaining 18 pertain to non-law disciplines. This, the petitioner claims, not only dilutes the quality of legal education but also causes unnecessary stress to students, especially those from science backgrounds who have no prior exposure to humanities.

Further, the PIL describes the current structure as a "sacrilege" of the New Education Policy. It points out that the policy champions universal access, affordability, and quality education, while the five-year structure does the opposite by making legal education longer, costlier, and less accessible. It also notes the inconsistency of forcing students to undertake two full graduation programmes (e.g., BA and LLB) in a single course, arguing that this practice is outdated and without justification.

The petitioner also draws historical comparisons, noting that eminent legal figures such as the late Ram Jethmalani and Fali S. Nariman began practicing law at the ages of 17 and 21, respectively, under the previous three-year LLB structure. The new integrated model, in contrast, delays the entry of law graduates into the profession, causing unnecessary loss of productive years.

"Today, the total lifespan has decreased from 100 years to 80 years, and the voting age has been reduced from 21 years to 18 years. People are maturing earlier with respect to their age. A 04-year law course will be better equipped for the young generation," the plea reads.

"Direct the Centre to setup a Legal Education Commission or an Expert Committee consisting Eminent Educationists, Jurists, Retired Judges, Advocates and Professors to Review the Syllabus, Curriculum and the Duration of the LLB and LLM Courses and make it most appropriate," the PIL prays.