SC Rejects PIL for 3-Year LLB After High School Feasibility Assessment

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India (Supreme Court of India)

Supreme court rejected the admission of the PIL “to set up an expert committee” for assessing the feasibility of introducing 3 years, LLB after high school

Introduction:

The Law profession being one of the noble and professional studies, requires the knowledge, expertise and maturity to grow, flourish and mitigate the litigation and to indemnify the (legal) rights of the fellow citizens. To attain the same, the process of gaining the legal knowledge plays a crucial role which is achieved by the accomplishment of the “Degree of Law”.  Many universities & colleges do not mandate the internships and to participate in competitions to date as a result of which law students lack practical knowledge in the field of law. This case deals states the rapid growth and importance of legal studies in our country.

Facts:

A Public Interest Litigation had been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court requesting to give orders to the Centre for setting up an expert committee to assess the feasibility regarding the reduction of tenure of LLB course after completion of High School.

Arguments:

The Advocate for petitioner held that it would increase the burden of the poor families to pay fees for the prolonged 5 years course as well it could affect the studies of the girl child who are willing to pursue the course. Further, they have contended that the subjects included in 10 semesters could easily be studies in 6 semesters and the UK is following the same system as in par with any other bachelor’s degree.

Judgement:

The Hon’ble CJI held that, the admission of the PIL is baseless as to it requires the students to gain the knowledge and such maturity can be attained upon accomplishing the course for 5 years. He also held that “Why have a three-year course at all. They can start practice (of law) after high school only!!” on a lighter note and disagreed to the contentions of the Advocate for the Petitioner.

Hence the PIL was dismissed on the grounds.