Supreme Court expresses reluctance to intervene in 5-year law course debate

THe sublime margaret court on mon verbalised hesitation to intervene in the debate over the duration of the five-year integrated LLB course, saying such policy matters cannot be decided by courts, even as it underscored the importance of strengthening the quality of legal education.Hearing a plea seeking the reduction of the course duration to four years, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that while legal education is a critical issue, decisions on the structure and length of professional programmes require wider consultation among academic institutions, regulators, and other stakeholders.“Legal education should be taught to children so that they know what are the basic laws… Teaching legal education is one issue, and the quality of education is another. There has to be quality education.”The observations came as the court heard a public interest litigation filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, which seeks the constitution of a Legal Education Commission comprising eminent jurists, academics, and legal experts to review the framework governing legal education in India, including the syllabus and duration of law courses.The petition challenges the five-year integrated law programme, arguing that most professional courses in India are structured for four years and that the longer duration discourages talented students from choosing the legal profession.Upadhyay, who mentioned the petition for expedited listing, told the court that the current structure of legal education was failing to attract the best talent. “This is a PIL to form a Legal Education Commission consisting of eminent jurists to frame the syllabus. All professional courses like CA and BTech are for four years, and law is five. It is failing to attract the best talent.”The CJI said that issues relating to legal education involve multiple stakeholders and cannot be resolved solely through judicial directions. “On the issue of legal education, the judiciary is just one stakeholder. There are many others who also have a say in it. Academicians, jurists, the Bar, social and policy researchers are there. There should be deliberation with them...We cannot thrust our views.”The court indicated that decisions regarding the duration or structure of legal education programmes fall within the domain of regulatory and academic bodies such as the Bar Council of India (BCI) and universities.While acknowledging that legal education is a critical area, the bench said it may not be appropriate for courts to dictate the length of professional courses.The CJI referred to the early history of the five-year law programme in India, noting that the model predates the establishment of the National Law School system. “The pioneer of the five-year course was not National Law School Bangalore but Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. The first batch was around 1982 or 1983.”The court questioned the need for judicial intervention if universities themselves were opposed to the current structure of the programme.When Upadhyay submitted that several university chancellors were not in favour of the five-year course, the bench asked why those institutions could not initiate changes themselves. “Then why can’t they reduce the term? Why is a court order needed?” the bench asked.Upadhyay responded that any change in the duration of law programmes would require a decision from the BCI, which regulates legal education and professional standards.The court directed that the matter be listed for further consideration in April 2026.Upadhyay’s petition argues that the five-year integrated LLB programme imposes an unnecessary financial and time burden on students, particularly those from middle- and lower-income families. It adds that the extended duration delays students’ entry into the workforce and increases the cost of legal education.The petition relies on the National Education Policy, 2020, which promotes four-year undergraduate programmes across professional and academic disciplines, arguing that the BCI has not taken steps to review legal education in light of the policy.