Supreme Court says no to plea for three-year law school; need mature people in the profession

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea that proposed introducing a three-year bachelor’s degree in law after class 12. The court stated that more mature individuals were needed in the profession.

A two-judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala agreed that maturity was crucial in the profession, and that the existing five-year course was useful.

read more

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, submitted that the five-year post-school course has a negative impact on female students.

Refuting this point, the bench noted, “More than 50 percent of the students enrolled in the course are girls.”

The judges recommended that the petitioner withdraw the plea, a recommendation that was subsequently followed.

The plea stated, “A student might feel comfortable opting for science in 12th grade, but it might prove difficult if he or she has to study for the Arts or Commerce course. It is a violation of Article 21 as the right to free will is violated.”

The petitioner pointed out that a B. Tech degree through the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) requires four years of focused education in a specific technical field. Conversely, the BA-LLB or BBA-LLB program through National Law Universities (NLUs) lasts five years and provides knowledge of art/commerce, which is considered an unrelated and unnecessary addition. According to the petitioner, the five-year course is therefore irrational.

“The lengthy and expensive course discourages students from studying law. Exceptional students with financial problems take engineering, civil service or other courses instead. BA and LLB or BBA and LLB are both graduate courses, and as such, there is no need for either in a student’s career. The annual tuition fee for the five-year course was relatively higher than that of a three-year course,” the petition said.