The Supreme Court declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) urging the Centre and the Bar Council of India to establish an expert committee to evaluate the viability of transitioning from the existing five-year LLB course to a three-year program after class 12.
Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala, comprising the bench, said the five-year LLB (Bachelor of Law) course is “working fine” and there was no need to tinker with it.
"The plea is allowed to be withdrawn," stated the Chief Justice following arguments from senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the petitioner Ashwini Updhyay.
"Why have a three-year course at all? They can commence legal practice straight after high school!" remarked the Chief Justice, adding that even five years is "also less".
The senior advocate said that even in the United Kingdom, the law course is only three years long, portraying the current five-year LLB course in India is a "disincentive for the poor, especially girls".
Disagreeing with the assertions, the Chief Justice pointed out that 70% of recent entries into the district judiciary were women and noted a growing number of girls pursuing law.
Singh sought permission to withdraw the PIL, with the liberty to present a representation to the Bar Council of India on the matter. However, the bench denied this request and permitted only the withdrawal of the PIL.
Filed by lawyer Ashwani Dubey, the PIL had urged the BCI and the Centre to establish an expert committee to explore the feasibility of a three-year LLB course.
Currently, students can opt for a five-year integrated law course after class 12 through the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), conducted by premier National Law Universities (NLUs), or pursue a three-year LLB course after graduating in any discipline.
The plea argued that the extended duration of the five-year integrated course was arbitrary, irrational, and imposed an excessive financial burden on students, contrasting it with examples of prodigies who excelled in law without such a prolonged educational requirement.
"There are numerous examples of prodigies not being encumbered by a rigid system which focuses more on being the jack of all rather than being the master of one," the plea contended, citing figures like former law minister Ram Jethmalani, who initiated his law firm at age 17, and late Fali Nariman, who completed law at 21.
Follow us
