Supreme Court Questions Bar Council’s Control Over Legal Curriculum

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised serious concerns over the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) role in framing legal education curricula, questioning whether the responsibility should remain with a regulatory body rather than be entrusted to academicians.

The issue came up during the hearing of petitions challenging the BCI’s 2021 decision to scrap the one-year LL.M. programme in India and to de-recognise foreign LL.M. degrees.

BCI’s Role In Academics Under Scrutiny

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh expressed reservations about the BCI exercising final control over law college curricula. The Court stressed that while the BCI could play a role in professional training, such as drafting or citation practices, the core academic curriculum should be developed by legal scholars and educationists.

“Why should the BCI decide curriculum of law colleges? You can provide training in legal practice, but academic frameworks must be left to universities and academicians,” Justice Kant observed.

Concerns Over Judicial Training & Quality

The Bench also voiced concern about the quality of judicial officers emerging from the current legal education system. Justice Kant remarked that legal education should focus on creating judicial officers who understand the common man’s plight, rather than producing graduates who deliver “mechanical judgments.”

“In legal education, the judiciary is a primary stakeholder. What kind of officers are we getting?” he asked, highlighting the need for a more human-centric approach in legal training.

Court Recommends Focus Shift For BCI

Justice Kant urged the BCI to focus on its core responsibilities, particularly improving the welfare and global recognition of Indian lawyers, rather than conducting inspections of law colleges.

“You have an onerous responsibility. Look at the number of lawyers in this country. If global recognition is your goal, work on that instead,” he said.

In its order, the Court requested the Central government and the University Grants Commission (UGC) to file comprehensive responses on the issue of the BCI’s regulatory powers. The Attorney General of India, R Venkataramani, was also asked to assist the Court during the next hearing.

“We direct the UGC to submit its reply and request the Union to file a comprehensive affidavit. The AG is also requested to assist the Court,” the Bench noted.

More In The Case

The Court also orally suggested that any committee set up by the BCI to review the LL.M. programme must include Vice-Chancellors and leading academicians to ensure balanced and informed recommendations.

NLU Consortium Criticizes

Appearing on behalf of the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLU Consortium), Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi argued that the BCI was overstepping its jurisdiction by regulating not just LL.M. degrees, but also PhDs, diplomas, and other academic qualifications.

“The BCI’s purpose is to regulate entry into the legal profession. Now, it’s trying to control academic degrees as well,” he said. “We’re not opposed to two-year LL.M.s, but should practitioners be forced into longer programmes when one-year options are academically sound?”

Court will resume the matter after receiving the affidavits from the Union government and UGC, and after hearing the assistance of the Attorney General.