Legal Education in India: Current Challenges

Dr. Nitish Nawsagaray,

Assistant Professor, ILS Law College, Pune-4
Introduction
After the advent of globalisation and privatization, India has seen the mushrooming of law
colleges. These 900 and odd law colleges have posed new challenges to the legal profession in
India. Traditionally, legal education was imparted by conventional law colleges affiliated to State
Universities or by the departments of the University. In the 1980s, Bar Council of India began
experimenting with the five year law course. An experimental Law University, the National Law
School of India University was established in Bangalore with an objective of getting quality
lawyers for the Bar. Thereafter, various universities started with the five year law course along
with the traditional three year law course. Bar Council of India is the apex body to recognize
educational institutions imparting legal education in India. It is also responsible for maintain the
standard of legal education in India under the Advocates Act, 1961. At the same time, standard
of higher education is maintained by the University Grant Commission under the University
Grant Commission Act, 1956. Traditionally, law colleges offered only 3 year law course after
graduation. The eligibility to enroll for the Law course was a Bachelor’s degree in any subject
from a recognized institution. The 5 years integrated Law degree course system emerged
therafter. The Five years law degree offered a multidisciplinary and integrated approach to legal
education. Eligibility for the five year course is successful completion of Class XII. The
Advocates Act, 1961 through Section 4 provides for both these courses.

Considering the fundamental relationship between law and society, quality legal education and
easy access to legal education are an imperative in the country. The Bar Council of India (BCI)
is the supreme regulatory body which regulates the legal profession and legal education in India.
Under S. 7(1) (h) of the Advocates Act, the BCI is empowered ‘to promote legal education and
to lay down standards of such education’. The Bar Council of India prescribes the minimum
curriculum required to be taught in order for an institution to be eligible for the grant of a law
degree. The Bar Council also carries on a periodic supervision of the institutions conferring the
degree and evaluates their teaching methodology and curriculum. Having determined that the

1
institution meets the required standards, the BCI recognizes the institution and the degree
conferred by it.

A. Pedagogy and Curriculum

Where the world today debates whether the Socratic ‘case-dialogue’ method of law teaching is
worth the importance it is given. Indian legal education scenario overwhelmingly relies on the
lecture method imparting ‘provision-ingredients’ knowledge of law. It is said that the “The
dominant method of legal teaching in India, involves a close analysis of the statutes and its
interpretation given by the courts. Students are given lectures, sometimes supplemented by
tutorials, introducing them to the broad principles of a particular subject with potted versions of
leading cases, which they are then expected to follow up themselves. Lecturing, note-taking,
memorizing, mugging and regurgitation in once or twice a year for examination purpose are the
hallmarki”. The classroom lacks any kind of discussion, analysis and understanding of the range
of other variables that operates on the positive law. The lecture method teaching is largely
irrelevant to majority of students who prefer to practice in trial courts as lawyers. When a fresh
law graduate enters court premises, he is literally lost in the court proceedings. Formal training
of law graduates before getting in the legal profession is absent in major law schools. The paper
of Clinical Legal Education and Practical Training is taught less as a practical paper and more as
a theory paper in most of the Universities. University of Pune is also not an exception to it.

The recommendations given by the Law Commission in the 184 th reportii are significant. Apart
from suggesting amendments in the Advocates Act and the University Grants Commission Act,
major recommendations concerning standards of legal education, legal skills and values,
examination system, education on legal education literature and training and apprenticeship were
given. The Commission also suggested that training of Alternate Dispute Resolution system must
be given to the law students in “in view of the recent amendments to the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (Sec.89) and observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocates
Bar Association v Union of India.iii” Professional training to law teachers apart from the existing
refresher courses was also a major suggestion to increase the quality of teaching in the legal
sphere. The quality of teaching is remarkably poor amongst majority of the legal institutions,
including the first tier National Law Schools. The Commission suggested that practioners and
judges should be encouraged to teach as well. The contribution of National Law Schools to the

2
Bar is unfortunately inadequate compromising quality access to justice to the weaker sections of
the society on great levels.

B. Infrastructural requirements

At present Educational Institutions in India imparting Legal Education could be put in three tiers:

I. National Law Schools established by the Act of State legislatures, which has received
Infrastructural grants from the State along with huge land grants.
II. Traditional Law Colleges, established under the Trust Act affiliated to State
University. Very few colleges receive salary grants from the State government and
majority colleges are non granted.
III. Private University and Deemed University Law Colleges, these colleges don’t
receive state grants and are self financed.

The number of National Law Schools is 16. Also, the number of Private Universities and
Deemed Universities is very less. The number of traditional Law Colleges is more than 900. The
major concerns of legal education are these 900 and odd traditional law colleges imparting legal
education in various parts of India. The first and foremost question which could come to the
mind of any prudent person is, whether the BCI is equipped to regulate and monitor the legal
institutions which have mushroomed numerously in last two decades. Most of the traditional
Law Schools doesn’t receive state salary grants. They are self financed and many a times are not
adequately equipped to support the demands of professional law college. The BCI Rules on
“Standards of Legal Education and Recognition of Degrees Law admission as Advocates, 1998”
prescribes in pursuance of the Advocates Act, 1961 has recently been replaced by the “Rules on
Standards of Legal Education and Recognition of Degrees in Law for the purpose of enrolment
as Advocates and inspection of Universities for recognizing its degrees in law 2008”. The BCI
has proposed a standard course Curriculum for all the law schools. It has also recommended
minimum infrastructural requirement for running a law college. Many law colleges do not fulfill
the infrastructural requirements as recommended by the BCI, but still they continue to get annual
approval from the BCI. The BCI norms, especially the ones concerning minimum faculty, library
requirements, teaching load are being flagrantly violated by the law colleges and yet their
affiliation with the Council continues. As per the new norms of BCI, the law college is supposed

3
to have at least 4 core full-time teaching staff in the first year, 6 and 8 in second and the third
year respectively. I don’t think most of the colleges meet these criteria. Maximum colleges do
not even have a duly appointed fulltime qualified Principal and are being managed by in-charge
Principals. Most colleges find it impossible to arrange lecturers and classes for students on
regular basis. The classes are held only with the help of visiting faculties, who are paid less as
Rs. 75 /- to 100/-per lectures.iv Many of the visiting teachers take the classes out of personal
favours to the principals or the management. Many Law Colleges run in a shared building. The
building is sometime shared with Primary and secondary level schools. The Fulltime Law course
is run more as a part time course. Many students take admission for the LL.B course and
thereafter directly appear for the examination. Although the attendance requirement of BCI is
70% of attendance till end of the semester, many law colleges blatantly violate this rule. Also the
number of law students admitted to the course and the infrastructure available with the colleges
also never matches. The physical infrastructure is never sufficient enough to accommodate all
the students.

It is necessary to point out that legal education is professional education and not vocational
training. The letter may be described as training in skills and technique required for practitioners
of a vocation. Lawyers are not mere artisans of law. As said by Justice Fortas (as he then was):

“A lawyer is not merely a craftsman- or even an artist. He has a special role in our
society. He is a professional, specially ordained to perform at the crisis time of the life of
other people; and almost daily, to make moral judgments of great sensitivity. He is the
principal laboratory worker in the mixing of governmental prescriptions. His is an
important hand at the wheel of our economy because, as lawyer, he has a profoundly
important voice in business transaction, And, of course, he is the custodian of the flaming
sword of individual and personal liberty, as well as of the public order.”v

Do our law colleges train lawyers as professionals? Can a lawyer educated in a law college with
minimum infrastructural facility, inadequate teaching staff, untrained teachers stand as a
professional upholding the high standards of Legal Profession?

4
C. Teaching Faulty:

Qualified and competent teaching faculty is another major concern for law colleges all over the
country. Despite a mandatory minimum entry-level requirement national eligibility test for law
teachers, many law colleges appoint who do not clear this eligibility test. This trend is motivated
by completely other consideration. The management gets Law teachers to teach in Law colleges
on minimum salary ranging from Rs. 5000/- to 20,000/- per month, without any vacation and job
protection. The Government doesn’t give grants, BCI and Universities keep on adding new law
Colleges. College management wants to make profit (surplus). Teachers are available to teach on
low payment. In this scenario the greatest casualty is to the Legal Profession and Quality Legal
Education. Even qualifies teachers are pay less salary in most of the non-granted law colleges.
Considering the inadequate number of law teachers, out of which many of whom have chosen
Law teaching because they feel it is the least demanding career option. Today, academic
achievements, rigour, research potential etc are not the only considerations on which a law
school is accredited by the main regulatory bodies. There are other considerations as well, and
they are well reflected through the number of law schools in the country that gets BCI
recognition despite poor academic and infrastructural standing. The situation is not different in
many of the National Law Schools. Lack of qualified and competent teachers is a major concern
in most of the National Law Schools in India. Many National Law Schools are student driven.
They make success on the national scenario because the intake of students is excellent. Students
are focused on their career and are offered immense freedom in their academics. For the private
law Universities, profit is the only motto. The Law Schools are established for profit making, and
to make profit the emphasis is more on selling the brand of Law College. No student fails
examination in Private universities. Rather getting a Second class in examination itself is rare.
Inviting celebrities, organizing five star seminars and conferences, moot court competitions, and
many more activities are with the purpose of selling the brand of the institution to the world at
large so as to attract more and more students and make profit out of it. In spite of having
infrastructural sophistications, huge and ‘state of art’ buildings, Wi-Fi campuses and renowned
Lawyers, politicians as patrons, they have not contributed qualitatively to the Legal Education or
Legal Profession in India.

5
Conclusion

Access to knowledge plays a major role in shaping a law student. Absence of access to legal
resources is a major problem faced by the legal institutions of the country. Most of the database
access demand substantial payment compelling students of traditional law colleges to look for
alternative sources, which mostly are less qualitative. Administrative inefficiency also
deteriorates the quality of legal education at many levels.

In a legal system where ignorance of law is not an excuse, access to knowledge of law remains a
primary concern of legal education. BCI should consider seriously whether the current rules and
regulations in fact meet with the challenges faced by the legal profession in the era of
liberalization, where every private institute is bent upon to make profit at any cost. The demand
for legal education is much high in a country of over 120 crores of population.

BCI should consider the demand to provide mass education to this huge population. The training
of students in top law schools in India serves the needs of the corporate houses and law firms.
Hardly bright students from renowned law schools reach the Bar and practice law. Trial court
Bars are still in worse conditions. The quality of the Bar determines the quality of the Bench and
the quality of Bar depends of the quality of Law Education imparted in various Law schools in
India. Students who complete their LL.B and seek admission for Post Graduate courses are as
good as freshers in law. Even after a law degree, they are ignorant about the basic legal concepts.
The future of legal education appears to be scary in this context. The BCI mechanism to monitor
legal education in India has failed considerably. Legal Education needs a structural change in the
Monitoring mechanism. India needs more law colleges to reach to the maximum masses. Law as
a profession is opening up new opportunities, the point is whether the Legal education in India
equipped to seize this opportunities? The answer is in the negative. Present BCI mechanism has
failed tremendously. It needs a total revamp, keeping in mind the needs and potentials of legal
education in India. To quote Hon’ble Justice Y.K Sabharwal (as he then was), “the basic
qualities that a legal professional must demonstrate include not only his knowledge of law but
also analytical and intellectual ability coupled with a total commitment towards the obligations
of the profession vis-à-vis the society. A legal professional represents an independent intellectual
group, which has the capacity and the opportunity to change the societal trends. It inheres in this
that a member of legal fraternity will always be scrupulous in abiding by the morals, the ethics

6
and the high traditions of the system that he has adopted, not merely by way of inheritance from
his forerunners but as a loan from the future generations that are to follow vi”. Indian legal
education needs to realize exactly this.

7
i
Ajay Ranga, Legal Education in India, Reviews of Literature, Vol.2, Issue 3 (Oct 2014).
ii
Law Commission of India, 184th Report on The Legal Education and Professional Training and Proposal for Amendments
to the Advocates Act 1961 and the University Grants Commission Act 1956 (2003).
iii
AIR 2003 SC 189
iv
Research Foundation for Governance in India, Study on legal education.
v
The Training of Practice, Dedicatory Address, Rutgers University, School of Law, Sept. 10, 1966, cited in the S.K.
Agrawala (Ed), Legal Education in India-Problems and Perspectives, N.M. Tripathi Private Limited, 1973, p31.
vi
Justice Y.K Sabharwal, Inaugral Speech, Two-day National Summit of Legal Fraternity ‘Lawyers India- 2006’, Bar
Council of India.