The Supreme Court stated that it cannot impose its views on matters relating to legal education while hearing a plea seeking reduction of the five-year integrated LL.B. course to four years.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering a public interest litigation filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The petition sought the constitution of a Legal Education Commission to review and reform the structure, syllabus, and duration of law courses in India.
During the hearing, the petitioner emphasized that most professional courses in the country, such as engineering and accountancy, are typically completed within four years. He argued that the five-year law programme discourages talented students from entering the legal profession and places an unnecessary burden on aspirants.
However, the Bench underscored that issues concerning legal education require broader consultation among stakeholders, including academicians, jurists, policymakers, and the legal fraternity. The Court made it clear that the judiciary is only one of several stakeholders and cannot unilaterally dictate reforms in such domains.
“We cannot thrust our views,” the Chief Justice observed, stressing the need for collective deliberation in shaping education policy.
The Court also reflected on the historical development of the five-year law programme, noting that it was initially introduced in the early 1980s by Maharshi Dayanand University, and not by the National Law School of India University as is commonly believed.
When the petitioner claimed that many university authorities were not in favour of the current five-year structure, the Bench questioned the necessity of judicial intervention, asking why universities themselves could not take steps to revise the course duration. In response, it was pointed out that any such reform would also require action from the Bar Council of India.
The petition further contends that the five-year LL.B. programme imposes an excessive financial burden on students, particularly those from middle- and lower-income backgrounds, and delays their entry into the workforce. It also alleges that the extended duration is disproportionate to the academic content.
Relying on the National Education Policy 2020, the petitioner argued that the policy supports four-year undergraduate programmes across disciplines, and that similar reforms should be extended to legal education. The plea also seeks directions to the Union Government to establish an expert committee comprising jurists, retired judges, academicians, and practitioners to comprehensively review legal education in India.
Notably, the petitioner had earlier approached the Court with a plea to replace the five-year LL.B. course with a three-year programme immediately after Class 12. That petition was dismissed in 2024, with then Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud observing that the existing system helps ensure maturity among entrants to the legal profession.
The Court has now directed that the present matter be listed for further hearing in April 2026.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No. W.P.(C) No. 453/2025)
Read More: Govt. Makes EPCES Membership Mandatory for SEZ Units; Renewal Drive for 2026–27 Announced
