Supreme Court Seeks Response on PIL Seeking Reform in Integrated Law Degree Duration and Legal Education Structure

Supreme Court issues notice on PIL by Ashwini Upadhyay seeking reform in 5-year integrated law degrees; cites financial burden & NEP 2020. Responses sought from BCI, UGC.

In a significant development that could reshape the landscape of legal education in India, the Supreme Court has issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking comprehensive reforms in the duration and structure of LLB and LLM courses across the country. The PIL, filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, specifically challenges the current five-year integrated law degree programmes as outdated and financially burdensome for aspiring legal professionals.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi on Tuesday (July 29) formally sought responses from the Centre (Union of India), the University Grants Commission (UGC), the Bar Council of India (BCI), and the Law Commission of India. The matter has been slated for a joint hearing with other related cases on September 9, 2025.

Arguments for Reform:

The PIL by Advocate Upadhyay argues that the existing five-year integrated B.A. LL.B., B.B.A. LL.B., and other similar programmes are disproportionately long and impose an excessive financial burden on students, particularly those from low and middle-income backgrounds. The petition contends that these extended durations unnecessarily delay students' entry into the workforce and make legal education less accessible.

Key points highlighted in the PIL include:

• Alignment with NEP 2020: The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 promotes four-year undergraduate pathways, including for professional degrees. The PIL argues that legal education, despite being a professional course, has not aligned with this national policy, remaining stuck with a five-year integrated model that includes non-law electives.
• Financial Burden: The prolonged duration translates to higher tuition fees and living costs, making it a "money-making trick" for private institutions, as alleged by the petitioner.
• Dilution of Core Learning: The inclusion of subjects like history, economics, and sociology in the initial years, while enriching, is argued to dilute core legal learning and unnecessarily extend the course.
• Historical Precedent: The PIL cites examples of eminent jurists like late Ram Jethmalani and Fali S. Nariman, who completed their legal education in shorter traditional three-year streams and excelled in the profession, questioning the necessity of the current extended format.
• Parity with Other Professions: The petition draws a comparison with other professional courses like B.Tech (engineering), which are completed in four years, arguing that law courses should also be streamlined.

Demand for a Legal Education Commission:

At the heart of the PIL's demands is a prayer for the establishment of a dedicated Legal Education Commission or an expert committee. This body, proposed to comprise distinguished educationists, jurists, retired judges, advocates, and professors, would be tasked with comprehensively reviewing the syllabus, curriculum, and duration of both LL.B and LL.M programmes nationwide. The ultimate aim is to ensure that legal education becomes more efficient, inclusive, and aligned with global best practices.

The Supreme Court's decision to seek responses from key regulatory and governmental bodies underscores the seriousness with which it views the issues raised in the PIL. The outcome of this case could potentially lead to significant structural changes in how legal education is imparted in India, directly impacting future generations of law aspirants.