New Delhi, Apr 22 (Agency) The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking that students be allowed to pursue three-year LL.B. courses soon after 12th class. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala did not agree with the petitioner’s view that school students only needed three years of legal study before they were allowed to enter the legal profession. The Bench remarked, “Why have a three-year course at all? Can start practice after high school only, the court said. CJI Chandrachud said, ‘We need mature people coming into the profession, For us five years of Law is also less. BA for three years and then Law, This five years of law course has proven very beneficial, Justice Chandrachud said.
The Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking directions to the Central government and the Bar Council of India (BCI) to form an expert committee to assess the feasibility of allowing three-year LL.B. right after high school. Upadhyay challenged the present five-year Law course which he said is at the behest of expensive colleges. He also pointed out that civil servants can start their careers right after completing their undergraduate studies. Upadhyay also sought that the Central government, the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Consortium of the National Law Universities should be directed to prepare a detailed roadmap to attract the best talent in the legal field. The Five-Year Law courses are presently available right after school. It is an integrated course named BA/BCom/BBA LL.B.). The other option to pursue law is a three-year LL.B. after graduation in a Bachelor’s programme.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appearing for Upadhyay argued that allowing students to pursue a three-year law course after school could help female students as well as those coming from poor economic conditions. Singh argued that many girls and poor students cannot join the five-year legal course as it is expensive and does not work well. The Court, however, refused to entertain the plea and asked the petitioner to withdraw the petition. Singh eventually withdrew the petition and said he would move his representation before the Bar Council of India (BCI).