We need mature people in legal profession: Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL for 3-year-LLB after school

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking that students be allowed to pursue three-year LL.B. courses right after school [Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and ors]..A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justice JB Pardiwala expressed at the outset that it did not agree with the view that school students only needed three years of legal study before they were allowed to enter the legal profession."Why have a three-year course at all...can start practice after high school only!...If you ask me five years (of legal studies) is also less...For us it was BA for three years and then law...We need mature people coming into the profession...This five years course has proven to be very beneficial," CJI Chandrachud remarked today, during the hearing..The Court eventually allowed the petitioner to withdraw the PIL..Law courses presently available right after school currently have a five-year duration (five-year BA/BCom/BBA LL.B.). One can pursue a three-year LL.B. after graduation in a Bachelor's programme.In his PIL, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay had sought directions to the Central government and the Bar Council of India (BCI) to form an expert committee to assess the feasibility of allowing three-year LL.B. right after high school.Upadhyay argued that the five-year course length is at the behest of expensive colleges. He also pointed out that civil servants can start their careers right after completing their undergraduate studies.A second prayer made in his plea was that the Central government, the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Consortium of the National Law Universities should be directed to prepare a detailed roadmap to attract the best talent in the legal field.The PIL was filed through Advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey..In today's hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appeared for Upadhyay and submitted that allowing students to pursue a three-year law course after school could help girl students as well as those coming from poor economic conditions."For girl children, the poor and the girl are disincentivized to join the profession due to five-year course...For poor students, this (five-year course) is not working well," Singh submitted.The Court, however, was reluctant to entertain the plea."District judiciary intake this time was 70 per cent women and even now girls are much more," the CJI added while addressing Singh's concerns regarding girl students.."Let us withdraw to make representation to BCI," Singh eventually urged."No, no. Just withdraw, that is all," the Court replied..Accordingly, the plea was withdrawn.