A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who sought the formation of a Legal Education Commission to review and reform the structure of legal education in India.

Court Says Judiciary Is Only One Stakeholder

During the hearing, the bench remarked that the judiciary cannot dictate how legal education should be structured. According to the court, policymaking in education must involve academicians, jurists, professional bodies and other stakeholders.

The Chief Justice observed that while concerns about the structure of legal education may exist, the court cannot “thrust” its own views on such policy matters. Instead, the issue should be discussed through a broader consultation process involving experts and regulators responsible for legal education.

Petition Seeks Four-Year Law Degree

The petitioner argued that the current five-year integrated LL.B programme after Class 12 should be replaced with a four-year programme. He claimed that in several countries the law degree after school lasts four years and that the existing five-year structure may discourage talented students from choosing law as a profession.

Upadhyay also submitted that many other professional courses in India, such as engineering and chartered accountancy, typically run for four years. According to him, aligning the law degree duration with other professional courses could help attract more capable students into the legal profession.

Court Questions Need for Judicial Direction

The bench questioned why a court order was required if universities themselves believed that the duration of the course should be reduced.

Responding to the petitioner’s claim that many university chancellors were dissatisfied with the current five-year structure, the court asked why educational institutions could not independently implement such reforms. The petitioner responded that regulatory authorities such as the Bar Council of India would also need to approve any such change.

The court reiterated that such policy matters fall primarily within the domain of academic and regulatory bodies rather than the judiciary.

Matter Listed for Further Hearing

After hearing the submissions, the bench scheduled the matter for further consideration in April 2026. The case is titled Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India & Others (W.P. (C) No. 453/2025).

The outcome of the case could have significant implications for legal education in India, particularly regarding the duration and structure of undergraduate law programmes.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who sought the formation of a Legal Education Commission to review and reform the structure of legal education in India.

Court Says Judiciary Is Only One Stakeholder

During the hearing, the bench remarked that the judiciary cannot dictate how legal education should be structured. According to the court, policymaking in education must involve academicians, jurists, professional bodies and other stakeholders.

The Chief Justice observed that while concerns about the structure of legal education may exist, the court cannot “thrust” its own views on such policy matters. Instead, the issue should be discussed through a broader consultation process involving experts and regulators responsible for legal education.

Petition Seeks Four-Year Law Degree

The petitioner argued that the current five-year integrated LL.B programme after Class 12 should be replaced with a four-year programme. He claimed that in several countries the law degree after school lasts four years and that the existing five-year structure may discourage talented students from choosing law as a profession.

Upadhyay also submitted that many other professional courses in India, such as engineering and chartered accountancy, typically run for four years. According to him, aligning the law degree duration with other professional courses could help attract more capable students into the legal profession.

Court Questions Need for Judicial Direction

The bench questioned why a court order was required if universities themselves believed that the duration of the course should be reduced.

Responding to the petitioner’s claim that many university chancellors were dissatisfied with the current five-year structure, the court asked why educational institutions could not independently implement such reforms. The petitioner responded that regulatory authorities such as the Bar Council of India would also need to approve any such change.

The court reiterated that such policy matters fall primarily within the domain of academic and regulatory bodies rather than the judiciary.

Matter Listed for Further Hearing

After hearing the submissions, the bench scheduled the matter for further consideration in April 2026. The case is titled Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India & Others (W.P. (C) No. 453/2025).

The outcome of the case could have significant implications for legal education in India, particularly regarding the duration and structure of undergraduate law programmes.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who sought the formation of a Legal Education Commission to review and reform the structure of legal education in India.

Court Says Judiciary Is Only One Stakeholder

During the hearing, the bench remarked that the judiciary cannot dictate how legal education should be structured. According to the court, policymaking in education must involve academicians, jurists, professional bodies and other stakeholders.

The Chief Justice observed that while concerns about the structure of legal education may exist, the court cannot “thrust” its own views on such policy matters. Instead, the issue should be discussed through a broader consultation process involving experts and regulators responsible for legal education.

Petition Seeks Four-Year Law Degree

The petitioner argued that the current five-year integrated LL.B programme after Class 12 should be replaced with a four-year programme. He claimed that in several countries the law degree after school lasts four years and that the existing five-year structure may discourage talented students from choosing law as a profession.

Upadhyay also submitted that many other professional courses in India, such as engineering and chartered accountancy, typically run for four years. According to him, aligning the law degree duration with other professional courses could help attract more capable students into the legal profession.

Court Questions Need for Judicial Direction

The bench questioned why a court order was required if universities themselves believed that the duration of the course should be reduced.

Responding to the petitioner’s claim that many university chancellors were dissatisfied with the current five-year structure, the court asked why educational institutions could not independently implement such reforms. The petitioner responded that regulatory authorities such as the Bar Council of India would also need to approve any such change.

The court reiterated that such policy matters fall primarily within the domain of academic and regulatory bodies rather than the judiciary.

Matter Listed for Further Hearing

After hearing the submissions, the bench scheduled the matter for further consideration in April 2026. The case is titled Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India & Others (W.P. (C) No. 453/2025).

The outcome of the case could have significant implications for legal education in India, particularly regarding the duration and structure of undergraduate law programmes.