The Supreme Court on Monday said it cannot impose its own views on issues concerning legal education. The Court observed while hearing a public interest litigation that seeks to reduce the five-year integrated LL.B. course to four years.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay. The plea seeks the constitution of a Legal Education Commission comprising eminent jurists. According to the petition, the proposed body should examine and reform the legal education framework, including the syllabus and duration of law courses.
Upadhyay had orally mentioned the matter for urgent listing. He filed the petition in 2025. During the hearing, he argued that most professional courses in India run for four years. He further submitted that the five-year law programme discourages meritorious students from entering legal education.
“This is a PIL to form a Legal Education Commission consisting of eminent jurists to form the syllabus. All professional courses like CA, B.Tech are for four years, and law is five years. It is failing to attract the best talent,” he submitted.
Court Stresses Need for Wider Deliberation
In response, the Chief Justice said legal education issues require discussion among all stakeholders. Therefore, the matter cannot rest on judicial determination alone.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant also referred to the origins of the five-year law course in India. He remarked that Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, and not the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, pioneered the five-year course. He added that the first batch was around 1982 or 1983.
The Bench then underlined that the judiciary is only one stakeholder in legal education policy. It said academicians, jurists, members of the Bar, and social and policy researchers must also participate in the process. Hence, the Court said a broader deliberation was necessary.
“But the judiciary is only one stakeholder. We cannot thrust our views. Academicians, jurists, the Bar, social and policy researchers are there. There should be deliberation with them,” the Chief Justice said.
Court Questions Need for Judicial Intervention
Upadhyay then submitted that most university chancellors do not support the continuation of the five-year course. However, the Court questioned why judicial intervention was necessary if universities themselves opposed the present framework.
“Then why can’t they reduce the term? Why is a court order needed?” the CJI asked.
In reply, Upadhyay said the Bar Council of India would also have to take a decision on the issue.
The Court ultimately directed that the matter be listed for further consideration in April 2026.
What the Petition Seeks on 5-Year Law Course Reform
The public interest litigation filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay states: “05 years B. The law has been designed for extracting money, and the most egregious part is that such a dirty trick is being used in the name of education. A five-year course is no benchmark for judging the legal expertise of any student”.
The petition seeks directions to the Union Government to constitute a Legal Education Commission or Expert Committee. It proposes that the body should include eminent educationists, jurists, retired judges, advocates, and professors. It would review the syllabus, curriculum, and duration of the LL.B. and LL.M. courses. It would also take appropriate steps to attract the best talent to the legal profession.
The petitioner relies on the National Education Policy, 2020. He argues that the policy promotes four-year graduation courses in professional and academic disciplines. However, according to him, the Bar Council of India has not taken appropriate steps to revisit the existing syllabus, curriculum, and duration of the LL.B. and LL.M. courses.
The petition further states: “The Injury Caused to the Students is extremely large because the 05 years duration of the BA-LLB and BBA-LLB Course is disproportionate to the Course Material. The Long period puts an excessive financial burden on the Middle and Lower-Class family, and they are unable to bear such a heavy financial burden. It takes two more years for a student to become the bread earner in his family.”
Earlier Plea on Law Course Duration
Earlier, the same petitioner had approached the Supreme Court with a similar plea. In that petition, he sought the replacement of the five-year LL.B. course with a three-year course after Class 12.
However, in April 2024, the Supreme Court declined to entertain that plea. At the time, then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed, “We need mature people coming into the profession. This 5-year course has been very beneficial.”
Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 453/2025
Also Read: BNSS Pre-Cognizance Hearing Challenge: Madras HC Notice
