The Supreme Court has called upon the Union Government to consider the creation of a dedicated expert body to examine and reform the legal education system in the country.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana made the observation while hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who has sought the constitution of a Legal Education Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of the existing framework governing legal education.
“This is an important matter,” the Chief Justice observed during the hearing, indicating that the Centre should examine the feasibility of establishing a specialised national-level institution. The Court emphasised that the present era increasingly relies on expert institutions and suggested that legal education, too, could benefit from a dedicated body comprising specialists in the field.
The PIL seeks a structural review of legal education, including the syllabus, curriculum and duration of LLB and LLM programmes. The petition argues that the existing system requires recalibration in light of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and developments in higher education.
Upadhyay informed the Bench that the Union Government, the Bar Council of India and the Law Commission of India had not yet filed their respective responses to the petition. He also pointed out that Vice-Chancellors of various National Law Universities had joined the proceedings, although the matter could not be heard at length.
The petitioner has raised particular concerns over the structure of the five-year integrated law programmes. According to the PIL, courses such as BA LLB and BBA LLB impose a substantial time and financial burden on students, while their curriculum incorporates a significant component of non-law subjects.
The petition argues that the legal education framework should be reconsidered against the broader policy direction of the NEP 2020, which advocates flexibility, multidisciplinary learning and greater accessibility in higher education. It contends that the present five-year structure has not kept pace with changes introduced in other professional disciplines.
The petitioner has also drawn attention to the four-year undergraduate degree structure prevalent in disciplines such as engineering and questioned whether legal education should continue to follow a comparatively longer integrated model. The PIL advocates a fresh assessment of the duration and architecture of professional legal courses in light of contemporary academic requirements.
Another concern raised in the petition is the economic burden associated with pursuing an integrated five-year law programme. The petitioner has argued that the cost and duration of legal education could discourage students from economically weaker and middle-income backgrounds from entering the profession.
The plea further seeks an expert review of the proportion of non-law subjects incorporated into integrated law programmes. It argues that while interdisciplinary exposure is valuable, the structure should not dilute the core legal component or unnecessarily extend the period required for students to qualify in law.
The petition has proposed that the suggested Legal Education Commission or expert committee comprise eminent educationists, jurists, retired judges, advocates and law professors. Such a body, according to the plea, could undertake a comprehensive assessment of the curriculum and recommend a framework aligned with contemporary educational standards.
The proceedings also bring into focus the respective roles of the Centre, the Bar Council of India and other institutions in shaping professional legal education. The absence of a comprehensive review over an extended period, as alleged by the petitioner, has been cited as a reason for institutional reform.
The Supreme Court has not issued any final direction for the constitution of a Legal Education Commission. Its observations at this stage are confined to asking the Union Government to consider whether an expert institutional mechanism should be created to examine the concerns raised in the PIL.
The matter is expected to be considered further after the Centre, the Bar Council of India and the Law Commission place their responses before the Court.
The post Supreme Court asks Centre to consider expert body for comprehensive overhaul of Legal education appeared first on India Legal.