Today, 2nd May, The Delhi High Court declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the decision on a four-year LL.B program. The court stated that the matter fell under the policy domain, not warranting judicial interference. This decision underscores the judiciary’s stance on matters concerning educational policy.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, On Thursday, declined to consider a Public interest litigation (PIL) that requested the Central government to establish a ‘legal education commission.’ This proposed commission intended to evaluate the practicality of introducing a four-year Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) program.
The bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, ruled that this matter does not come under the jurisdiction of the court. Additionally, the judges emphasized the importance of law students receiving education in non-legal subjects as well, highlighting a broader approach to legal education.
Read Also: Delhi High Court Rejects Plea to Establish Legal Education Commission
The court clarified to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who was the petitioner,
“Not our domain…We don’t design courses.You can’t undermine a 5-year law course in this manner,”
Following the court’s indication of its intent to dismiss the petition, Upadhyay chose to withdraw it, which the court permitted.
During the proceedings, Mr. Upadhyay highlighted that renowned legal figures such as Ram Jethmalani and Soli Sorabjee commenced their legal careers at the ages of 17 and 21 respectively. In response, the Court emphasized the continuous nature of their education.
The Court remarked,
“Consider their numerous lectures and observe the depth of understanding they continued to attain even after entering the legal field.”
When Mr. Upadhyay expressed concern that law students required to study seemingly unrelated subjects like history and economics, the Bench asserted the necessity of such a curriculum. It highlighted the interconnection between various fields, including law, science, and technology, and the innovations occurring within them.
Justice Manmohan emphasized the broad scope required in legal practice, stating,
“A lawyer must engage with a diverse range of subjects. This includes income tax. To argue that economics plays no role is misguided, we handle GST and other economic matters daily. I personally wish I had a background in economics. Understanding engineering, such as Standard Essential Patents, is equally crucial.”
The Court also stated that a “certain bit of lack of knowledge” contributed to the filing of the PIL.
It remarked,
“The court highlighted a gap in understanding, stating, ‘Have you observed a mobile phone? It encompasses 4000 patents. When handling a case, the complexity becomes apparent. There are exceptional lawyers in this generation, greatly sharpened by the five-year law course. It’s unjust to dismiss their capabilities so casually,'”
In his Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Upadhyay requested that the Bar Council of India (BCI) establish a committee of retired judges, jurists, and educators to evaluate how well the five-year law course aligns with the National Education Policy. The Court, however, declined to instruct the BCI to review Upadhyay’s proposal.
The Court made it clear that they would not issue any directives, stating,
“We are not going to direct anything. They will decide it if they want to decide it.”
In the PIL, Upadhyay argued that B Tech courses involve four years of “non-superfluous education” in a specified field of Engineering, while BA LLB or BBA LLB programs take five years of a “student’s precious life” offering knowledge of Arts/Commerce, which he deemed “an unrelated and superfluous stream.”
He also contended that the current five-year LLB program was blatantly arbitrary, irrational, and contradicted the National Education Policy.
Read Also: BREAKING|| PIL in Delhi HC: Addressing the Need for a Legal Education Commission
The petition stated,
“The current five-year B.Law is primarily designed for financial gain, and the most troubling aspect is that such exploitative practices are justified under the guise of education. A five-year duration is not a reliable measure of a student’s legal proficiency,”
Previously, Upadhyay lodged a PIL in the Supreme Court requesting directives to permit students to enroll in three-year LLB programs immediately after completing school.
The Apex Court declined to consider the plea, with Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud commenting that the legal profession requires individuals with maturity.