Today, the Supreme Court (SC) of India declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to allow students to pursue a three-year LL.B degree course after the 12th standard. The two-judge bench constituting Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala expressed reluctance to entertain the matter. It said that there is no compelling reason to alter the well-functioning system. CJI Chandrachud said, “Why have a three-year course at all…can start practice after high school only!... If you ask me five years is also less…For us, it was BA for three years and then law…We need mature people coming into the profession…This five-year course has proven to be very beneficial.”
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, in his PIL, sought directions to the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Central Government to form an expert committee to assess the feasibility of allowing students to pursue a 3-year LL.B course after 12th-standard. The PIL reads, “The undue 5 years’ time is arbitrary and irrational for many reasons. Firstly, the length of time is not necessary to give a Bachelor's degree, secondly, the prolonged period of 5 years is not suitable for students, thirdly, the 5 precious years are not proportional to study Law and fourthly, this puts excessive financial burden on the students to complete such a lengthy degree.”
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh presented the matter before the SC on behalf of Upadhyay. He submitted that “For girl children, the poor and the girl are disincentivized to join the profession due to five-year course…For poor students, this is not working well.” To this, CJI remarked, “District judiciary intake this time was 70% women, and even now girls are much more.” After this, SA Singhvi urged, “Let us withdraw to make representation to BCI.” The bench replied, “No, no. Just withdraw, that is all.”