The Supreme Court is reviewing a PIL pushing for a four-year LL.B. degree in line with NEP 2020. Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay challenges the five-year law course, citing financial burden and outdated structure.

Supreme Court Reviews Plea Against Current Law Course Duration

The Supreme Court of India is currently evaluating a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that proposes replacing the traditional five-year LL.B. program with a four-year law degree, as encouraged by the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP 2020).

Filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, the PIL emphasizes that the extended law degree is financially burdensome and outdated. A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the case and decided to club it with a related petition concerning a one-year LL.M. program.

Advocate Upadhyay Challenges Educational Intent of Five-Year LL.B.

According to Advocate Upadhyay, the five-year integrated LL.B. course was designed more for profit than educational benefit. He argued that its duration doesn’t necessarily reflect a student’s legal competence. His petition also recommends the formation of a Legal Education Commission or an Expert Committee—comprising jurists, retired judges, advocates, professors, and scholars—to reassess and reform legal education, including both LL.B. and LL.M. courses.

Bar Council of India Yet to Respond to NEP Guidelines

Citing the provisions of NEP 2020, Upadhyay claimed that the Bar Council of India (BCI) has yet to align legal education with the recommended four-year structure. He emphasized that this inaction contradicts the policy’s aim of streamlined professional education.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh Raises Socioeconomic Concerns

Representing the petitioner, Vikas Singh shared a personal anecdote in court—his yoga instructor is unable to afford a five-year law education for his daughter. He underscored the economic strain caused by prolonged academic timelines. Justice Vikram Nath suggested that the matter be referred to the Bar Council for consultation and agreed to merge the petition with the ongoing one-year LL.M. case, currently before Justice Surya Kant.

Previous Attempts to Reduce Law Course Duration

This isn’t Upadhyay’s first legal push for education reform. He previously requested a switch from a five-year course to a three-year post-Class 12 LL.B., which the Supreme Court rejected in April 2024. Then-Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud remarked, “We need mature people coming into the profession.”

Despite this, concerns over affordability and disproportionate course load persist. The petitioner argues that middle-class and lower-income families bear the brunt of extended education, delaying financial independence for aspiring lawyers by two years.

Conclusion: Legal Education Reform at a Crossroads

The debate surrounding the duration and structure of legal education in India is gaining momentum. As the Supreme Court deliberates on whether to align the LL.B. program with NEP 2020, the outcome could redefine the academic and professional landscape for future lawyers. Whether or not the Court mandates reform, the discussion highlights an urgent need to balance academic rigor, financial accessibility, and practical relevance in India’s legal education system.