The Supreme Court on Monday (March 16, 2026) expressed reluctance to endorse any change in the duration of five-year integrated LL.B. programmes across the country. The court said that such policy matters do not warrant judicial intervention, even as it acknowledged the need for reforms to strengthen the quality of legal education.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that while reforming legal education was necessary, decisions concerning the structure and duration of professional programmes require broader consultation with academic institutions, regulatory bodies and other stakeholders.
Supreme Court tags PIL for reviewing five-year law courses with pending plea
“On the issue of legal education, the judiciary is just one stakeholder. There are many others who also have a say in it. Academicians, jurists, the Bar, social and policy researchers are there. There should be deliberation with them. We cannot thrust our views,” the Bench said.
The top court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking the establishment of a Legal Education Commission comprising jurists and legal experts to examine the regulatory framework governing legal education in India, including the syllabi and duration of law programmes. Challenging the existing five-year integrated law courses, the petition argued that most professional programmes in India are structured for four years and that the longer duration may discourage meritorious students from pursuing a career in law.
