SC Pushes Legal Education Reform: National Commission Proposed, 5-Year Law Framework Under Review
CJI Surya Kant-led Bench Describes Legal Education as an Important National Issue, Emphasises Need for an Expert Regulatory Body
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
New Delhi, September 8, 2026: The Supreme Court has voiced support for the constitution of a specialised National Legal Education Commission or an equivalent expert body to examine and regulate the framework governing legal education in India.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was dealing with a Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, which seeks, among other reliefs, a comprehensive review of the duration, curriculum and academic structure of undergraduate and postgraduate law courses.
The matter was listed before the Bench but could not be taken up for hearing.
Subsequently, when the Bench was rising, the petitioner mentioned the case and submitted that the Union Government, the Bar Council of India and the Law Commission of India had not yet filed their respective responses.
Responding to the submissions, the Chief Justice observed that the issue required serious consideration and indicated that the Union Government ought to examine the possibility of establishing a specialised institutional mechanism for legal education.
“This is an important issue. The Union of India should come out with something some National Legal Education Commission or something. This is the era of expert bodies. There should be an expert body on legal education,” the CJI observed.
PIL Challenges Five-Year Law Course
The proceedings arise from the PIL in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors., registered as W.P. (C) No. 453 of 2025.
The petition challenges the existing structure of the five-year integrated law courses, including programmes such as B.A. LL.B. and B.B.A. LL.B. It seeks the constitution of a Legal Education Commission or expert committee comprising eminent educationists, jurists, retired judges, advocates and law professors.
The proposed body, according to the petition, should undertake a comprehensive examination of the existing LL.B. and LL.M. syllabus, curriculum and course duration, and recommend reforms aimed at improving the quality, accessibility and effectiveness of legal education.
The petitioner has relied upon the National Education Policy, 2020, and has contended that the policy encourages four-year undergraduate programmes across professional and academic disciplines.
On that basis, the plea argues that the duration of integrated law courses should also be reviewed.
During the mentioning, Upadhyay reportedly submitted that the prevailing policy emphasis was increasingly focused on four-year professional courses.
Drawing an analogy with engineering education, he argued that if a B.Tech degree could be completed in four years, the duration of an undergraduate law programme could similarly be reconsidered.
Petition Alleges Financial Burden on Students
The petition contends that the five-year duration of integrated law courses places a disproportionate financial burden on students, particularly those belonging to middle-class and economically weaker families.
It further alleges that the length of the course is not commensurate with the academic material prescribed and delays the point at which law graduates can enter the profession and begin supporting their families.
The plea has also questioned whether the mere duration of a law course can serve as an adequate benchmark for determining professional competence.
It seeks a structured, expert-led review rather than continuation of the existing framework without an institutional assessment.
Earlier Caution Against Judicial Intervention
The Supreme Court’s latest observations assume significance in light of its earlier remarks on the same issue.
In March, a CJI-led Bench had indicated that the Court could not simply impose its own views on the structure of legal education.
The Bench had observed that the judiciary was only one of several stakeholders involved in shaping legal education policy.
It had emphasised the importance of obtaining the views of academics, jurists, members of the Bar, researchers and other experts before undertaking any systemic change.
In an earlier proceeding in April 2024, the Supreme Court had declined to entertain a plea seeking replacement of the five-year law course with a three-year programme after Class XII. The then Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, had observed that the five-year course had been beneficial and that the profession required mature entrants.
The present proceedings, however, raise a broader institutional question whether India requires a dedicated and independent expert body to periodically evaluate legal education, rather than leaving decisions concerning curriculum, duration and academic standards to fragmented consultations among existing institutions.
The Supreme Court has not, at this stage, directed any alteration in the duration of the five-year law courses.
Its observations indicate that the Union Government may consider a structured expert mechanism for examining the future of legal education in the country.
