'We Can't Thrust Our Views' : Supreme Court On Plea To Reduce 5 Year LL.B Course As 4 Year

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that it cannot impose its views on matters concerning legal education while hearing a public interest litigation 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 hearing a petition filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking the constitution of a Legal Education Commission consisting of eminent jurists to review and reform the legal education framework, including the duration and syllabus of law courses.

Upadhyay orally mentioned the petition, filed in 2025, seeking urgent listing. During the hearing, Upadhyay submitted that most professional courses in India are four-year courses and argued that the five-year law course discourages talented students from pursuing 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. It is failing to attract the best talent,” he submitted.

Responding to the submissions, the Chief Justice said that issues relating to legal education require wider consultation among all stakeholders and cannot be decided solely by the judiciary.

During the exchange, the Chief Justice also referred to the early history of the five year law programme in India.

“The pioneer of the five year course was not National Law School Bangalore but Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. The first batch was around 1982 or 1983,” he remarked.

The Bench further noted that the judiciary is only one of several stakeholders involved in shaping legal education policy.

“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 theme” the Chief Justice said.

When Upadhyay argued that most university chancellors were not in favour of the five year course, the Court questioned why judicial intervention was necessary if universities themselves were opposed to the current structure.

“Then why can't they reduce the term? Why is a court order needed?” the CJI asked.

Upadhyay responded that the Bar Council of India would also have to take a decision in the matter.

The Court ultimately directed that the petition be listed for further consideration in April 2026.

The Public Interest Litigation was filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, contending that "05 years B. Law has been designed for extracting money and the most egregious part is that such 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 also seeks directions to the Centre to set up a Legal Education Commission or Expert Committee consisting of Eminent Educationists, Jurist(s), Retired Judge(s), Advocate(s), and Professors to review the Syllabus, Curriculum and Duration of the LL.B and LL.M Courses and take appropriate steps to attract the best talent in the Legal Profession.

The petitioner relies on the New Education Policy, 2020 and states that the policy promotes four-year Graduation Courses in all Professional and Academic Courses but the Bar Council of India (BCI) has not taken appropriate steps to review the existing Syllabus, Curriculum and the Duration of the LL.B and LLM Courses.

Earlier, the same petitioner had filed a petition seeking to replace the 5-year LL.B course with 3-year course after Class 12. In April 2024, the Supreme Court refused to entertain that petition, with the then CJI DY Chandrachud commenting, "We need mature people coming into the profession. This 5-year course has been very beneficial."