The Supreme Court asked why the BCI had the final say over the curriculum that Indian law schools would follow in its decision on Tuesday in Tamanna Chandan Chachlani v. Bar Council of India and related proceedings, and it recommended that academicians should ideally bear this responsibility.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh was hearing petitions challenging the BCI’s 2021 decision to de-recognize international LL.Ms. and end the one-year LL.M. program in India.
The BCI told the Court today that a former Chief Justice of India (CJI) is chairing a committee it formed with a number of stakeholders to look into the matter.
The Bench responded by asking why the BCI was granted the power to select the legal education curriculum at law schools. Even though BCI might help with teaching certain aspects of legal practice, like the art of writing legal papers, Justice Kant said orally that such matters should be left to academicians.
“Why should the curricula of law schools, etc., be determined by BCI? BCI has the difficult responsibility of providing training because it must be carried out all over India, which may require hiring university services. Receiving instruction in the art of authoring, citing case laws, etc., ought to be a requirement of your statute. Justice Kant believed that the academicians should be trusted with the curriculum.
The judge also expressed his dissatisfaction with the standard of judicial officers that the current legal education system produces.
“The primary stakeholder in legal education is the judiciary… What kind of police officers are we going to get? Do they have empathy for the plight of the average person, or do they make decisions at random? This can be studied by scholars,” he said.
Justice Kant went on to say that among the BCI’s many other duties should be the welfare of Indian lawyers.
“BCI must take care of its own obligations. Just look at the number of lawyers in our country. You want lawyers to be globally recognized. Focus on that rather than law schools.
In its decision today, the Court also sought the Central government’s and the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) views on these issues. Additionally, the Court has requested assistance from India’s Attorney General, R Venkataramani.
Regarding the issue and other associated issues pertaining to BCI’s authority, we would like a response from the Union and UGC. We request AG’s support for the court on the next hearing date. We give UGC instructions to respond. The Union was also required by the Court to submit a comprehensive affidavit.
Orally, the Court also suggested that any committee the BCI established to investigate the one-year LLM issue should include vice chancellors and other academicians.
Also Read:
NBSE HSSLC 2025: 82.44% Pass, Girls Shine Brighter Across All Streams