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 and constitution of a Legal Education Commission.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking urgent listing of the 2025 PIL. The petitioner argued that most professional courses in India — such as CA and B.Tech — are of four years’ duration and contended that the five-year law course discourages talented students from joining the legal profession.

“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,” Upadhyay submitted.

The Chief Justice responded that issues relating to legal education require wider consultation among all stakeholders and cannot be decided solely by the judiciary. Referring to the early history of the five-year programme, the CJI remarked, “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.”

The Bench emphasised 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 them,” the Chief Justice said.

When the petitioner submitted that most university chancellors were not in favour of the five-year course, the Court questioned why judicial intervention was necessary. “Then why can’t they reduce the term? Why is a court order needed?” the CJI asked. Upadhyay replied that the Bar Council of India would also have to take a decision in the matter.

The petition contends 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.” It seeks directions to the Centre to constitute a Legal Education Commission or Expert Committee comprising eminent educationists, jurists, retired judges, advocates and professors to review the syllabus, curriculum and duration of LL.B. and LL.M. courses in line with the New Education Policy, 2020, which promotes four-year graduation courses in all professional and academic streams.

The petitioner has highlighted the financial burden on middle and lower-class families and argued that the prolonged duration delays students from becoming breadwinners. Earlier, the same petitioner had filed a plea seeking replacement of the five-year LL.B. with a three-year course after Class 12. In April 2024, the Supreme Court had refused to entertain that petition, with the then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud observing, “We need mature people coming into the profession. This 5-year course has been very beneficial.”

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

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Details: W.P.(C) No. 453/2025