The Supreme Court Weighs In on One-Year LL.M. Recognition: A Legal Controversy By Abhishek Jat

 

 The Supreme Court Weighs In on One-Year LL.M. Recognition: A Legal Controversy

By Abhishek Jat

The Supreme Court of India is currently deliberating on the legal challenge against the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) decision regarding the recognition of one-year LL.M. degrees, particularly the requirement of one year of teaching experience for such degrees to be valid. This issue has been central to Writ Petition (C) No. 70/2021, filed by Tamanna Chandan Chachlani, and a connected petition by the Consortium of National Law Universities.

Background and Legal Dispute

The controversy initially arose from the BCI’s notification dated 02.07.2021, which introduced Clause 20(3) in the Bar Council of Legal Education (Post Graduate, Doctoral, Executive, Vocational, Clinical, and Other Continuing Education) Rules, 2020. The clause stipulated that a one-year LL.M. obtained from any foreign university would not be considered equivalent to an Indian LL.M. degree unless the degree holder completed at least one year of teaching experience as a visiting, internee, or clinical faculty in an Indian institution.

This provision created significant discontent, as it imposed an additional burden on LL.M. graduates from foreign institutions seeking recognition of their degrees in India. Advocate Rahul Shyam Bhandari, representing the petitioner, argued that such a requirement is unreasonable and falls outside the regulatory scope of the Advocates Act, 1961, which grants the BCI the power to regulate legal education only concerning enrollment for practice.

BCI’s Reversal and Subsequent Developments

In response to growing concerns, the BCI convened a meeting on 07.03.2021, where it was decided that the one-year LL.M. program should not be abolished. Instead, it should continue with stringent academic requirements, including being offered exclusively by Centers of Legal Education with dedicated postgraduate legal studies infrastructure. However, the requirement for additional teaching experience remained in force.

Furthermore, a recent BCI circular dated 20.05.2024 has added to the debate by stating that only individuals with recognized foreign LL.M. degrees—including the teaching experience requirement—would be eligible to pursue further studies in law in India. Since this circular was not initially challenged in the petitions, the Supreme Court has granted the petitioner time to file appropriate amendments.

Judicial Intervention and the Way Forward

A division bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and directed that responses be sought from the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Ministry of Education, and the University Grants Commission (UGC). The Court also suggested that the BCI convene another meeting involving all stakeholders to discuss a resolution to the remaining issues before the next hearing scheduled for 22.04.2025.

The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights the ongoing tension between regulatory control and academic autonomy in India’s legal education landscape. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for legal professionals seeking higher studies and employment opportunities both in India and abroad.

Conclusion

As the matter awaits judicial scrutiny, legal scholars and practitioners are closely watching how the Supreme Court will balance regulatory concerns with the need for academic flexibility. The recognition of foreign legal degrees remains a contentious issue, and any decision will set a precedent for future reforms in India’s legal education system.