SC seeks Centre, BCI response on PIL for four yrs LLB course like B Tech
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi sought the response of the Centre, UGC, BCI and Law Commission of India on the petition by September 9.
The top court directed the registry to list all the pending matters on the issue together on September 9.
The PIL filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay urged the top court to direct to the Centre to set up a legal education commission or expert committee to review the syllabus, curriculum and duration of the LLB and LLM Courses and take appropriate steps to attract the best talent in the legal profession.
The plea further said, "New Education Policy 2020 promotes four-year graduation courses in all professional and academic courses, but BCI has not taken appropriate steps to review the existing syllabus, curriculum and the duration of the LLB and LLM courses".
It said the injury caused to the students is extremely large because the five-year duration of BA-LLB and BBA-LLB courses is disproportionate to the course material.
"The long period puts excessive financial burden on the middle and lower-class families and they are unable to bear such a heavy financial burden. It takes two more years for a student to become the bread-earner in his family," the plea said.
"B. Tech through IITs takes four years of non-superfluous education and that too in a specified field of engineering, whereas BA-LLB or BBА-LLB through the NLU's and various other affiliated colleges consumes five years of a student's precious life while provid
ing knowledge of Arts /Commerce, an unrelated and superfluous stream. Hence, the existing five-year course needs to be reviewed by the experts," it said.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a few seconds ago
- Business Standard
CAQM admits no research has been done behind overage vehicle ban
The Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) has admitted it has not conducted any research or study on pollution caused by diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years that form the basis of the overage vehicle ban in Delhi-NCR. In a reply to an RTI application filed by environmentalist Amit Gupta, the CAQM said it has not undertaken any pollution research or study regarding the impact of such vehicles. Asked if there were any other research that formed the basis of the ban, the commission said the restrictions on "end-of-life" (EoL) vehicles stem from the National Green Tribunal's order in Vardhman Kaushik vs Union of India & Ors and the Supreme Court's order in M C Mehta vs Union of India & Ors. Last month, the CAQM put on hold until October 31 the enforcement of its earlier directive that fuel stations in Delhi should not supply petrol or diesel to such overage vehicles. The decision came after the Delhi government cited "operational and infrastructural challenges" in implementing the measure from July 1. EoL vehicles include diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years, irrespective of the state they are registered in. According to official data, Delhi has 62 lakh such vehicles, including 41 lakh two-wheelers. Across the NCR, the number stands at around 44 lakh, mostly concentrated in Gurugram, Faridabad, Ghaziabad, Gautam Budh Nagar and Sonipat. The July order had said the fuel ban in Delhi would be launched simultaneously in these five high-vehicle-density NCR districts from November 1, after installation of Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The mechanism will be extended to the rest of NCR districts from April 1 next year. The Delhi government told the CAQM that the ANPR system meant to identify EoL vehicles by checking number plates against the VAHAN database was facing software glitches, problems with camera placement, malfunctioning sensors and incomplete integration with neighbouring states' vehicle databases. The Delhi government told the CAQM that the ANPR system, meant to identify EoL vehicles by checking number plates against the VAHAN database, was facing software glitches, problems with camera placement, malfunctioning sensors and incomplete integration with neighbouring states' vehicle databases. In the past, the Supreme Court and the NGT have pulled up authorities over poor progress in removing old, polluting vehicles from the NCR despite repeated directions. The Delhi government has also filed a review application in the apex court, seeking reconsideration of the 2018 ban on average vehicles.
Mint
a few seconds ago
- Mint
AI plane crash: SC rejects plea for Air India safety audit, asks why only target airline involved in ‘tragedy'
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea seeking the constitution of a panel headed by a retired judge to independently audit Air India's safety practices and maintenance procedures. The SC bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the petitioner, Narendra Kumar Goswami, why only the airline that witnessed an 'unfortunate tragedy' should be targeted. 'Why just Air India? What about others?' the court asked while rejecting the plea. The top court also told the petitioner to withdraw his PIL and to move to the appropriate forum in case of grievances. 'Don't give the impression that you are playing with other airlines. Why target Air India only, which recently witnessed an unfortunate tragedy? If you want some regulatory mechanism in place, then why did you not make other airlines a party in your petition? Why only Air India?' the bench asked. The plea was filed in the wake of a recent crash of an Air India Boeing plane in Ahmedabad, in which 241 passengers and crew members were killed. The London-bound Air India flight, Boeing Dreamliner 787-8, had crashed moments after taking off from the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad on 12 June afternoon. Goswami, a lawyer, has also sought a comprehensive safety audit of Tata-owned Air India's entire fleet by an international aviation safety agency. He claimed to be a victim of "some unfortunate incident" with the airline. During the hearing, Justice Kant said, 'We also travel every week and know the status. There was a tragedy, a very unfortunate one. This is not a time to run down an airline.' Additionally, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) was sought to be directed to implement and enforce a transparent, publicly accessible reporting system for all aviation safety incidents, including a centralised database, ensuring compliance with the Aircraft Rules, 1937, and international best practices. A separate petition is pending before the apex court seeking directions to suspend the operations of all Boeing aircraft operated by the airline until a safety audit is completed.
Hindustan Times
a few seconds ago
- Hindustan Times
Banke Bihari temple: SC stays Allahabad HC orders, questions 'intemperate' language
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday expressed displeasure over the orders passed by Allahabad High Court in a PIL over historic Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan and questioned the use of 'intemperate language' against the Uttar Pradesh government. Banke Bihari temple: SC stays Allahabad HC orders, questions 'intemperate' language A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi perused the orders of July 21 and August 6 by a single-judge bench of the high court on a PIL which challenged the ordinance Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 and stayed the observations made in them. Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government pointed out to the bench that the high court conducted "parallel proceedings" on the issue and made certain "unwarranted observations" in the order. "What kind of intemperate language is being used by the high court? Like the state committed a sin by passing an ordinance. What is all this? Was the high court not informed that the Supreme Court was seized of the matter?" the bench said. Justice Kant further said the petitions challenging constitutional validity of a statute were always listed before the division bench but a single-judge passed the order in the present case. The bench ordered a stay on the observations made in the July 21 order, which appointed an amicus curiae besides the August 6 order having observations against the state. The top court also stayed further proceedings before the high court in the petition challenging the ordinance. It asked the Allahabad High Court chief justice to consider listing the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the ordinance before a division bench along with other petitions. On August 6, the high court criticised the state government's move to bring an ordinance proposing a statutory trust to manage the historic Banke Bihari Temple and observed that the state has committed a 'sin'. During the hearing, the single judge made sharp remarks on an attempt of the state government to take over the administration of the temple and asked the government to "leave the temple alone". This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
