The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned why the Bar Council of India (BCI) has the final say in determining the curriculum for law colleges, suggesting that such matters should ideally be left to academicians.

The observation came during the hearing of petitions challenging the BCI's 2021 decision to scrap the one-year LL.M. programme in India and de-recognise foreign LL.M. degrees [Tamanna Chandan Chachlani v. Bar Council of India and connected matters].

A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh was hearing the matter. During the proceedings, the Court was informed that the BCI had constituted a committee of stakeholders, chaired by a former Chief Justice of India, to review the issue.

However, the Bench expressed reservations about the BCI’s control over legal education curricula. Justice Surya Kant remarked that while the BCI could contribute to the professional training of lawyers—such as in legal drafting and the practical application of case law—academic matters like curriculum design should be handled by subject experts and educational institutions.

“Why should the BCI decide the curriculum of law colleges? It has the responsibility of professional training and may collaborate with universities for that purpose. But the curriculum must be entrusted to academicians,” Justice Kant said.

The Bench also voiced concern about the quality of legal education and its implications for the judiciary. “In legal education, the judiciary is a primary stakeholder. What kind of officers are we producing? Do they understand the plight of the common man, or are they delivering mechanical judgments?” Justice Kant asked, indicating that a more academic and holistic approach to curriculum development might be necessary.

Highlighting the BCI’s existing responsibilities, the judge suggested the Council focus on broader objectives such as the welfare of India’s lawyers and global recognition of Indian legal professionals. “You should be focusing on uplifting the profession and addressing the needs of the lakhs of lawyers in the country, rather than micro-managing law colleges,” he said.

In its order, the Court sought responses from the Central government and the University Grants Commission (UGC) regarding the scope of the BCI’s authority over legal education. The Court also requested the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani in the matter.

“We direct the UGC to file its response. Let the Union also submit a comprehensive affidavit. The Attorney General is requested to assist the Court on the next date of hearing,” the order stated.

The Bench further suggested that any committee constituted to evaluate the viability of the one-year LL.M. programme should include Vice-Chancellors and legal academicians to ensure a more balanced and expert-driven perspective.

Senior Advocate Dr. AM Singhvi, appearing for the Consortium of National Law Universities, argued that the BCI's interference was extending beyond LL.M. programmes to include doctoral and diploma courses. “The BCI was originally meant to regulate entry into the legal profession. Now, it is seeking to control all aspects of legal education. We are not opposed to the two-year LL.M., but a practising lawyer may prefer a one-year option,” Singhvi submitted.

In response, Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha, appearing for the BCI, maintained that an LL.M. is a teaching qualification and, therefore, a two-year course might be more appropriate. “Is a one-year LL.M. enough to qualify someone for teaching, or should it be a full two-year programme?” Tankha asked.

The Court, however, reiterated its central concern—whether the BCI should have any authority over academic qualifications at all. Justice Kant compared the situation to medical education, stating, “Does the Medical Council of India prescribe qualifications for MD or MS courses? The answer is a simple no.”