On Friday, the Supreme Court took note of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the replacement of the current five-year integrated law degree course with a four-year LL.B program, in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. However, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta did not issue notice in the matter and instead tagged it with an existing case related to the one-year LL.M program.

The petition, filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, argues that the five-year BA-LLB and BBA-LLB courses are financially burdensome and disproportionate to the curriculum. It claims the extended duration delays students' entry into the legal workforce and imposes a heavy cost, especially on students from middle- and lower-income families.

Upadhyay also called for the formation of a Legal Education Commission or Expert Committee to review the syllabus, curriculum, and duration of LL.B and LL.M programs. He alleged that the current five-year structure prioritizes revenue over educational merit and that the Bar Council of India (BCI) has failed to revise the legal education framework in accordance with NEP 2020.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, shared a personal motivation behind the plea, citing the financial difficulty faced by his yoga teacher in funding his daughter’s five-year legal education. Justice Nath questioned the significance of the issue raised and suggested referring the matter to the Bar Council. Singh then requested that it be tagged with a related matter concerning the validity of the one-year LL.M course, currently pending before Justice Surya Kant’s bench—a request the Court accepted.

This is not the first time the petitioner has challenged the structure of legal education. In April 2024, a similar plea advocating for a three-year LL.B course after Class 12 was dismissed by the Supreme Court. At that time, then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud had observed, “We need mature people coming into the profession. This five-year course has been very beneficial.”

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.