Supreme Court tags PIL for reviewing 5-year law courses with pending plea
The Supreme Court of India on Friday (May 9, 2025) ordered clubbing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking formation of a legal education commission or an expert committee to review five-year law courses in the country with a pending case.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, which refused to issue notice in the matter, agreed to hear the plea along with the other similar petition. "You want us to direct the government to frame a policy. We will tag this. Not issue notice," the Bench told senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the petitioner.
The plea filed by Mr. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay said the New Education Policy 2020 promotes four years of graduation courses in all professional and academic courses but there were no steps undertaken by the Bar Council of India (BCI) to review the existing syllabus, curriculum and the duration of the Bachelor of Law (LLB) and Mater of Laws (LLM) courses.
The PIL said the five-year duration of the BA-LLB and BBA-LLB courses was "disproportionate to the course material" and the long duration put an excessive financial burden on students.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
India's legal bridge is one of reciprocity, not roadblocks
In May this year, the Bar Council of India (BCI) implemented the Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India (hereinafter 'rules'). While many within the legal profession lauded the rules, a few law firms based in the United States have voiced strong objections, calling the rules a 'non-trade barrier' and a 'deliberate move to exclude or freeze out' U.S. law firms from engaging with the Indian legal ecosystem. However, such criticism reflects a limited appreciation of the statutory mandate of the BCI and an inadequate understanding of India's comprehensive regulatory framework governing its legal affairs. On the contrary, the rules strike a balance by facilitating the entry of foreign practitioners and firms while upholding professional standards and safeguarding the interests of stakeholders within the Indian legal profession. The criticism First, it is contended that the rules create a 'non-tariff trade barrier' by imposing procedural restrictions on U.S.-based law firms and legal professionals, thereby attempting to 'freeze out' their entry into the Indian legal landscape. Second, it is alleged that the interests of the U.S. were overlooked during global consultations preceding the framing of the rules, making it difficult for U.S. law firms and professionals to comply with the stipulated mandates. Third, the requirement to disclose details such as the 'nature of legal work' and 'client identity' is said to conflict with the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules on client confidentiality. Fourth, the regulations governing fly-in, fly-out provisions have been criticised for being inconsistent with the principle of reciprocity, as they impose duration-based, disclosure-based restrictions not similarly applied to Indian counterparts operating in the U.S. Fifth, the contention is that the rules have been introduced as a surprise move, providing no transition period for adjustment, thereby placing U.S. firms and professionals at a disadvantage. Finally, it is argued that the rules could adversely impact U.S.-India bilateral trade and legal engagement, as they may discourage Indian corporations from undertaking transactions involving U.S. laws, owing to a dearth of legal professionals who are skilled in U.S. laws. A reality check First, the BCI is not a trade body, but a statutory body to maintain standards of professional conduct and safeguard the interests of legal professionals across India. Second, constitutionally and technically, the practice of law cannot form part of a trade agreement, as it is governed under Entries 77 and 78 of the Union List, unlike entries dealing with trade and commerce under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Second, In Bar of Indian Lawyers Through Its President Jasbir Singh Malik vs D.K. Gandhi (2024), it was held that it was a contract of personal service, thereby segregating it from trade and business practices. Third, India recently chose not to include legal services in the United Kingdom-India Free Trade Agreement, despite facing significant international pressure. This reflects India's consistent position that legal services require a distinct regulatory framework. Fourth, the impugned rules do not bar foreign law firms and practitioners but liberalise the Indian legal ecosystem, albeit in a structured and regulated manner. For instance, Rules 3 and 4 permit foreign law firms to operate in India, subject to registration and compliance with ethical and professional conditions. Further, the fly-in, fly-out model, under the proviso to rule 3(1), allows temporary visits, subject to an aggregate stay not exceeding 60 days within a 12-month period. Fifth, Indian legal professionals lack universal access to the U.S. legal system and are subjected to rigorous, state-specific, examination-based licensing regimes. The reciprocity requirement under the rules, subjecting the U.S. counterparts to similar regulatory compliances, merely establishes equivalence. Sixth, rule 4(h), which mandates a certificate of 'good standing at the bar', has been flagged by U.S. stakeholders as problematic, owing to its decentralised ecosystem. However, this limitation stems from the U.S. regulatory structure and cannot be attributed to the BCI or India. Notably, rule 6 of chapter III allows for flexibility, empowering the BCI to verify such credentials holistically and on a case-by-case basis, thereby ensuring an accommodating approach, subject to an adherence to basic ethical and professional standards. Seventh, the requirement to disclose the nature and the extent of legal work does not dilute client confidentiality, as the objective is to obtain general information about the legal work or transaction. This ensures that the activities of foreign legal professionals remain within the permitted contours of legal practice in India. There has been debate and discussion Finally, the criticism regarding lack of consultations or a transition period before the operationalisation of the rules holds no ground. Debates and discussion have been ongoing for over two decades, encompassing expert committee reports, global consultations, and key judicial decisions such as Lawyers Collective vs Bar Council of India (2009) and Bar Council of India vs A.K. Balaji (2018) which have collectively laid the foundation for the present regulatory framework. Far from being a barrier, the rules aim to create a cooperative bridge liberalising the Indian legal landscape in a measured manner, while safeguarding professional integrity, client confidentiality, and upholding the vital principles of reciprocity and ethical accountability. Shivang Tripathi is a Senior Research Fellow at the Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. Shaiwal Satyarthi is a Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
New Indian Express
11 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Bengaluru stampede: Karnataka HC seeks sealed reply from state; next hearing on June 12
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday posted to June 12 the next hearing into a petition initiated by it on the June 4 stampede at the Chinnaswamy stadium here that claimed 11 lives. The court ordered Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty to file a reply in a sealed cover. During the hearing, AG Shetty submitted that he has not yet filed his reply. He said a judicial commission has been constituted, giving a one-month timeline for a report. He also noted that police officers have been suspended. Shetty requested for a sealed-envelope submission, stating that in the pending bail petitions being heard concurrently, any statements made in the case were being used by the accused. The suo-moto petition was heard by acting Chief Justice V Kameshwar Rao and Justice CM Joshi. A former member of the Legislative Council sought to be impleaded in the petition. Meanwhile, a counsel mentioned that he is also filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding the stampede. On June 5, Karnataka HC had taken suomoto cognizance of the stadium stampede event, and directed the state government to file a status report.
Hindustan Times
15 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Bengaluru stampede: Karnataka HC seeks sealed report from state government by June 12
The Karnataka High Court on Monday pressed the state government for answers regarding the June 4 stampede at Bengaluru's M Chinnaswamy Stadium that claimed 11 lives, directing that a detailed status report be submitted in a sealed cover by June 12. A bench led by Acting Chief Justice V Kameshwar Rao and Justice C M Joshi is hearing the case suo motu, along with three related petitions. The court has also granted temporary relief to Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) and DNA Networks, the event's ticketing and promotional partners, who had approached the court following the tragedy. (Also Read: 'Made a scapegoat': IPS officer challenges suspension order over Bengaluru stampede) The court questioned the preparedness and safety protocols in place at the time of the event, especially given the high-profile nature of the IPL celebration. It also sought details on how crowd management was handled and whether established procedures were followed. During the hearing, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty told the court that a judicial commission has been formed to investigate the incident and has been given a month to submit its findings. He requested permission to file a sealed report, citing concerns that public disclosures were being used in concurrent bail hearings involving the accused. The High Court took up the matter on its own motion a day after the incident. Since then, several developments have unfolded, including the suspension of senior police officials and calls for accountability from the event organizers and state agencies. A former member of the Legislative Council sought to be impleaded in the case, while another counsel informed the court of an upcoming Public Interest Litigation (PIL) related to the stampede. The matter is now scheduled to be heard next on June 12, when the court will review the sealed status report to determine further action. (Also Read: RCB's social media buzz led to stampede, Karnataka government tells HC: Report) (With PTI inputs)
