The Supreme Court on Friday considered a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) urging the replacement of the existing five-year integrated LL.B course with a four-year course in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which promotes four-year professional undergraduate programmes.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta did not issue notice in the matter but agreed to tag the petition with a pending case concerning the one-year LL.M course currently before a Bench led by Justice Surya Kant.
The PIL was filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who argued that the current five-year law programme was designed more to “extract money” rather than serve educational merit. He submitted that “a five-year course is no benchmark for judging the legal expertise of any student,” and further claimed that the longer duration imposed an “excessive financial burden on the middle and lower-class families.”
The petition seeks directions to the Centre to constitute a Legal Education Commission or Expert Committee comprising eminent educationists, jurists, retired judges, advocates, and law professors. The proposed body would be tasked with reviewing the syllabus, curriculum, and duration of both LL.B and LL.M programmes to make legal education more accessible and effective.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, highlighted the personal difficulties faced by families due to the extended duration of legal education. “My Yoga teacher is having difficulty in educating his daughter because of the fees structure, and he has to pay for five years. Four-year education is what the NEP also suggests,” he submitted.
When Justice Nath asked whether the matter raised any substantial issue, Singh responded that the petitioner’s concerns stem from broader financial and systemic difficulties. Justice Nath advised that the issue could be taken up with the Bar Council of India (BCI), but ultimately allowed Singh’s request to tag the matter with the one-year LL.M case pending before Justice Surya Kant.
The petition also reiterates previous efforts made by the same petitioner. In April 2024, the Supreme Court had dismissed a similar plea seeking a three-year LL.B programme post-Class 12. On that occasion, then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud had remarked, “We need mature people coming into the profession. This 5-year course has been very beneficial.”
In the present petition, Upadhyay argues, “The injury caused to the students is extremely large because the 5 years duration of BA-LLB and BBA-LLB Course is disproportionate to the course material. It takes two more years for a student to become the bread earner in his family.”
The case will now proceed along with the ongoing matter concerning the one-year LL.M programme.
