On Thursday, the Delhi High Court refused to consider a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) requesting the Centre to establish a "Legal Education Commission." This proposed commission would include retired judges, law professors, and lawyers tasked with assessing the viability of implementing a four-year LLB course.

A division bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora, noted that it falls outside the court's jurisdiction to formulate educational courses. They emphasized that such matters are within the purview of the authorities responsible for education, who will determine the resolution of this issue.

“We have studied in 6 years education system after 12th. You're asking us to change that. This isn't our domain. We don't design courses, no?,” the ACJ remarked.

The PIL was initiated by BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. He highlighted that previously, there was a three-year LLB course after completing 12th standard. Upadhyay pointed out that eminent figures like late Ram Jethmalani and Fali Nariman began practicing law at the ages of 17 and 21 respectively, underscoring the historical context of legal education.

In response, the bench expressed, "Let me tell you, their education never came to an end. How much they have read even at that age. They were continuously reading and updating themselves. Nobody does that." The bench emphasized that the authorities consistently evaluate law courses, and it's beyond the court's jurisdiction to intervene in their domain.

“My. Upadhyay, we are sorry to say. It does not reflect a very deep study of subject of law,” the court said.

The counsel representing the Bar Council of India (BCI) informed the court that Upadhyay had previously filed a similar petition before the Supreme Court, seeking to permit a three-year LL.B degree course immediately after the 12th standard. However, the Supreme Court declined to entertain his PIL, and subsequently, it was withdrawn.

The Acting Chief Justice remarked, "Today, new lawyers entering the profession are exceptionally bright. If you sit on the original side, you'll encounter numerous young, bright lawyers. Brilliant legal minds are emerging, and this generation is remarkably sharp. The course structure has played a significant role in this development. Therefore, criticizing it in such a manner wouldn't be appropriate. Instead, you should make a representation, and the authorities will duly consider it."

As the court leaned towards dismissing the plea, Upadhyay chose to withdraw it. He then requested a direction for the Bar Council of India to form an "Expert Committee" comprised of retired judges and jurists. The committee would be tasked with evaluating the alignment of the five-year LLB course with the National Education Policy 2020.

The plea argued that the National Education Policy advocates for four-year undergraduate programs, yet the Bar Council of India has neither assessed the five-year LLB course nor initiated a four-year law program thus far.

It further contended that while a student may be comfortable choosing science as their stream in 12th standard, it would be burdensome and restrictive to compel them to study Humanities or Commerce as part of the mandatory curriculum in the five-year LLB course.