The Supreme Court Today (April 22nd) refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking that students be allowed to pursue three-year LL.B. courses right after school.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today declined to consider a public interest litigation (PIL) that proposed a significant alteration to the legal education pathway in India. The PIL advocated for enabling students to embark on a three-year Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) program immediately following their high school education, a proposal that was met with skepticism by the highest court.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and accompanied by Justice JB Pardiwala, expressed reservations from the beginning about the proposition. It underscored a fundamental disagreement with the notion that a mere three years of legal education post-school would suffice for students before they enter the legal profession.
The current educational structure mandates a five-year integrated degree (BA/BCom/BBA LL.B.) immediately after high school or a three-year LL.B. program that can only be pursued after obtaining a bachelor’s degree.
The PIL, submitted by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, called upon the Central government and the Bar Council of India (BCI) to establish an expert committee. This committee would be tasked with evaluating the viability of introducing a three-year LL.B. program right after high school completion.
Upadhyay’s petition, represented by Advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey and argued in court by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, presented the argument that the prevailing five-year course length predominantly serves the interests of pricier educational institutions. Moreover, Upadhyay highlighted the fact that civil servants are permitted to start their careers following their undergraduate studies, suggesting a disparity in professional pathways.
A further request in the PIL was for the creation of a comprehensive strategy by the Central government, the BCI, and the Consortium of National Law Universities. The objective of this strategy would be to draw top-tier talent into the legal profession.
During the court session, Advocate Vikas Singh, representing Upadhyay, posited that allowing the pursuit of a three-year law degree post-high school could significantly benefit female students and those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. He articulated,
“For girl children, the poor and the girl are disincentivized to join the profession due to five-year course…For poor students, this (five-year course) is not working well.”
However, the Supreme Court displayed reluctance towards the petition. CJI Chandrachud addressed the concerns regarding female students by indicating that the intake for the district judiciary recently comprised 70% women, suggesting an already significant representation of women in the legal field.
Upon the court’s evident disinclination to proceed with the case, Singh suggested,
“Let us withdraw to make representation to BCI,”
-to which the court responded with a concise directive to simply withdraw the petition.
The Court’s interaction with the proposition culminated in a reflective commentary by CJI Chandrachud, who remarked,
“Why have a three-year course at all…can start practice after high school only!…If you ask me five years (of legal studies) is also less…For us it was BA for three years and then law…We need mature people coming into the profession…This five years course has proven to be very beneficial.”
This discourse underscored a broader perspective on the necessity of thorough and extensive legal education, ultimately leading to the withdrawal of the PIL by the petitioner.
BACKGROUND
A petition has been lodged with the Supreme Court, advocating for a shift in the educational pathway to law. The petition argues against the current requirement for aspiring lawyers to undertake a five-year integrated course before beginning their careers. Instead, it proposes a more streamlined approach, allowing students to pursue a three-year Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree immediately following high school.
The core argument hinges on the belief that a five-year duration for legal studies is disproportionate and unnecessarily burdensome both financially and temporally for students. The petitioner posits that,
“5 precious years is not proportional to study Law and fourthly, this puts excessive financial burden on the students to complete such a lengthy degree. Had there been less time of 03 years for finishing the bachelor degree, the student could have gotten 02 undisturbed years to obtain practical knowledge in Court or Law Firm or to pursue Master degree or to prepare for judicial exam.”
Furthermore, the plea invokes the illustrious careers of the late jurists Fali S. Nariman and Ram Jethmalani as benchmarks. It questions the rationale behind delaying the commencement of legal careers, arguing that,
“If a person can become a legend of the bar by starting their law career in just 17 years, then why should the youth waste 02 additional years of their life in the 05 years integrated course and not start their career from a young age of 20-21 years? … There are numerous examples of prodigies not being encumbered by a rigid system which focuses more on being the jack of all rather than being the master of one.”
The petitioner, Upadhyay, suggests that the insistence on a five-year course is largely due to the preferences of elite educational institutions. He emphasizes the disparity between the requirements for entering other professions and those for law, stating,
“Students don’t need a Bachelor of Arts to gain preliminary knowledge or law. Then why should Students be forced to waste 2 years obtaining it? … A student can become an IAS Officer after a simple graduation and attaining 21 years but for becoming a lawyer, he has to complete 05 years course after 12th standard, which is irrational.”
This plea underscores a significant conversation around legal education reform in India, focusing on the balance between academic preparation and practical experience, and the financial and temporal costs associated with becoming a lawyer.
CASE TITLE:
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and ors.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on LL.B.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
