Supreme Court Reviews Plea to Shorten Five-Year Law Degree to Four Years

 

By Abhishek Jat, Advocate

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has recently considered a significant petition that could reshape the landscape of legal education in the country. The petition seeks to reduce the duration of the integrated five-year Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) programme to a four-year course, in line with the recommendations of the National Education Policy 2020. This development has sparked a fresh debate on the structure, accessibility, and relevance of legal education for aspiring professionals.

Proceedings Before the Supreme Court

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta took up the matter, which was presented as a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner, a practicing advocate, argued that the current five-year course imposes unnecessary financial and temporal burdens, particularly on students from economically weaker sections. The petitioner further contended that the existing model is not proportionate to the actual academic content delivered and delays the entry of young professionals into the legal workforce.

During the hearing, the bench did not issue a formal notice but decided to tag the matter with a related case concerning the duration of postgraduate legal education. The Court also suggested that the Bar Council of India, as the primary regulator of legal education, should be involved in examining the issue.

Key Arguments and Policy Context

The core argument in favor of a four-year LL.B is based on the National Education Policy 2020, which advocates for four-year undergraduate degrees across professional disciplines. The petitioner emphasized that aligning legal education with this policy would promote flexibility, reduce financial strain, and attract a broader pool of talent to the legal profession.

The petition also called for the establishment of a high-level commission or expert committee to review the curriculum, duration, and structure of law courses in India. The aim is to ensure that legal education remains relevant, competitive, and accessible to all segments of society.

Judicial Observations

The bench acknowledged the importance of the issues raised, particularly the need to balance educational quality with accessibility and affordability. The Court's decision to hear the matter alongside the ongoing debate on postgraduate legal education signals a comprehensive review of the regulatory framework governing law degrees in India.

Broader Implications

If the petition leads to a change in the law degree structure, it could have far-reaching implications for students, educational institutions, and the legal profession. A shorter, more focused undergraduate law programme may enable students to enter the workforce earlier, reduce financial burdens, and make legal education more attractive to a diverse range of candidates.

Such a reform would also require careful consideration of curriculum design, quality standards, and the broader objectives of legal training in a rapidly evolving society.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's engagement with the plea to reduce the duration of the integrated law degree reflects a growing recognition of the need for educational reform. As the legal profession adapts to new challenges and opportunities, the structure and delivery of legal education must evolve to meet the demands of students and society. The outcome of this case could mark a transformative moment for legal education in India.