Today, 30th April, A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the Legal Education Commission filed in the Delhi High Court. The PIL addresses critical issues related to legal education and its governance. This development signals a potential shift in the legal education landscape and highlights growing concerns within the legal community. The PIL’s outcome could have far-reaching implications for legal education policies and practices.
New Delhi: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the Delhi High Court, urging the central government to establish a Legal Education Commission (LEC). The proposed LEC would be akin to the Medical Education Commission and include retired judges, law professors, and lawyers. Its purpose would be to evaluate the possibility of implementing a four-year Bachelor of Law program, similar to the BTech degree.
The petitioner, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, a practicing lawyer and BJP leader, requested that the court also direct the Bar Council of India (BCI) to form an expert committee. This committee would consist of retired judges, jurists, and educationists tasked with assessing the alignment of the current five-year Bachelor of Law program with the New Education Policy 2020.
Upadhyay’s plea stated,
“Direct the Expert Committee to prepare a report on the essentiality of a BA, BBA, or BCom before BLaw, which is also a graduation course.”
Further elaborating on the need for reform, the plea criticizes the current five-year BA-LLB and BBA-LLB programs offered through the National Law University and other affiliated colleges for being overly lengthy and unnecessarily integrating courses in arts or commerce fields deemed unrelated to legal studies.
The plea argued that such integration makes the five-year program,
“Manifestly arbitrary and irrational.”
Additionally, the plea highlights the discouraging nature of the current law education structure, noting its higher cost and longer duration compared to four-year courses, which may deter students, especially those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, from pursuing law.
It nostalgically references a time when notable legal figures like the late Ram Jethmalani and Fali Nariman began practicing law in their early twenties, suggesting that shorter courses can effectively prepare legal professionals.
Red Also:Centre to Delhi HC: Maulana Azad Education Foundation’s Operation Called “Obsolete”
The plea also made a societal observation that,
“Today, the total lifespan has decreased from 100 to 80 years, and the voting age has been reduced from 21 to 18 years. People are maturing earlier with respect to their age.”
It argues that a four-year law course would be more suitable for today’s younger generation and criticizes the five-year program as a profit-driven model rather than an educational imperative, asserting,
“A five-year course is no benchmark for judging the legal expertise of any student.”
Highlighting historical precedents, the plea references former law luminaries such as Ram Jethmalani and Fali Nariman, who began practicing law in their early twenties, highlighting that effective legal training does not necessarily require lengthy courses. It further criticizes the current system as being profit-driven under the guise of education, suggesting that it fails to accurately measure a student’s legal expertise.
Lastly, the petitioner invokes broader demographic trends, noting the reduction in average lifespan and the earlier maturity of individuals, to argue that a streamlined, four-year law program would better suit the contemporary youth, making legal education more accessible and aligned with global standards. This reform, according to the plea, would not only make legal education more efficient but also more equitable, opening up opportunities for a wider range of students to enter the legal profession.