Supreme Court Seeks Response on PIL for Legal Education Commission, Law Course Reforms

Petitioner argues that 5-year integrated law courses are financially burdensome and outdated, calls for revival and reform of 3-year LL.B programmes to align with NEP 2020 and improve accessibility.

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday formally issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, which seeks the creation of a Legal Education Commission to re-evaluate the curriculum and duration of LL.B and LL.M courses nationwide

A bench led by Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi has requested responses from the Centre, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the Bar Council of India (BCI), and the Law Commission of India.

The PIL has been slated for a joint hearing with other related cases on September 9, 2025. The petition points to the 5-year integrated BA-LL.B and BBA-LL.B programs as outdated and financially burdensome, particularly impacting students from low- and middle-income backgrounds.

While the National Education Policy encourages four-year undergraduate pathways, legal education remains unchanged, retaining long integrated programs with non-law electives like history, economics, and sociology, which the petitioner argues dilute legal core learning

The petition claims that the extended duration has been perpetuated by private institutions largely for monetary gain. Students must pay full fees even during non-instructional internship months—adding to their financial burden

Demands of the Petition

A proposed expert body composed of educationists, jurists, retired judges, advocates, and professors should assess and reform the syllabus, curriculum, and course length of LL.B and LL.M programs The aim is to ensure legal education becomes more efficient, inclusive, and aligned with global best practices, thereby making the profession more accessible to all segments of society.

The petitioner highlighted examples from India’s legal history to emphasize that some of the most distinguished jurists—such as S. Ram Jethmalani and Fali Nariman—succeeded without undergoing prolonged multi-year integrated programs, completing their legal education in traditional three-year streams

In addition, the PIL contends that while engineering and other professional degrees like B.Tech are streamlined to four years, law courses stretch an unnecessary extra year. This prolongation, the petition argues, delays students’ entry into the workforce and discourages those from financially challenged backgrounds from pursuing law careers.

What to Expect Next

Centre, UGC, BCI, and Law Commission have been asked to file replies ahead of the next hearing. The matter will be heard again on September 9, 2025, with all related petitions consolidated for joint adjudication.