NO SENSE IN BCI POWERS PARLIAMENTARY PANEL

Limit BCI’s power, uniform LLB, LLM curriculum, mandatory apprenticeship: Parliamentary Panel Suggests.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice chaired by Sushil Kumar Modi has submitted a report on Strengthening legal education given emerging challenges before the legal profession.

The committee chaired by Sushil Kumar Modi, MP, Rajya Sabha, presented its 142nd report on the Subject – “Strengthening Legal Education in View of emerging challenges before the Legal Profession”. The report was presented to redesign the legal curriculum to enable the development of skills required for pursuing diverse legal professions and not just courtroom practice.

Unlike the Advocates Act, 1961, which was enacted with a limited view, the legal profession over the years has developed. It is not just confined to a limited role of lawyers working in courtrooms but beyond. In this regard, the committee recommended setting up of an independent Authority, the National Council for Legal Education and Research under the proposed Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) to deal with all aspects of legal education.

The Committee has suggested that the powers of the Bar Council of India (BCI) be curbed when it comes to the regulation of legal education. It has also suggested the introduction of an apprenticeship system for undergraduate law students.

While acknowledging that the BCI is empowered to regulate the field, the report states, “…the BCI has also faced criticism and challenges in its role as the regulator of legal education. Some of the issues that have been raised are the lack of uniformity and quality in legal education across the country, the inadequacy and inefficiency of the inspection and recognition process, the resistance and noncooperation from some of the state bar councils and universities, the controversy and litigation over the validity and necessity of the AIBE, and the lack of innovation and reform in the curriculum and pedagogy of legal education.”

Setting up of NCLER & Limiting BCI’s powers
“There is no sense in the BCI having regulatory powers over the entire spectrum of legal education. Further, the BCI has neither power nor expertise to meet the challenges of the ever-changing globalized world. The National Knowledge Commission has also expounded this view. Also, there is a near unanimity amongst all the expert witnesses who appeared before the Committee, on this particular issue,” the committee in its report said.

It recommended that the regulatory functions related to higher education in law, which are currently under the BCI, and which are not related directly to practice at the Bar should be entrusted to an independent Authority, the National Council for Legal Education and Research.

Several stakeholders also raised concerns over the manner in which the BCI inspects and grants recognition to colleges and stated that it has led to “a reckless proliferation of substandard law colleges in the country”. It has directed the BCI to take urgent and effective measures to ensure the quality and excellence of legal education and profession in the country. Notably, the report suggests that the BCI’s regulatory authority should be restricted to setting basic eligibility criteria for practicing law, rather than overseeing the entire spectrum of legal education.

Accordingly, the Committee has advocated for establishing an independent authority called the National Council for Legal Education and Research (NCLER) to regulate higher education in law beyond practicing at the Bar.

Recognition of new law colleges

The Committee has also taken the view that while granting recognition to new law colleges, the BCI should give due consideration to quality over quantity.

Further, it has urged BCI to oversee the implementation of reservations in law colleges including National Law Universities (NLUs) and consider withdrawing their recognition for non-adherence.

Uniform curriculum for LLB, LLM
Law colleges and universities in India adopt different curricula and syllabi as prescribed by the affiliated colleges creating “unevenness” among law graduates. This also leads to difficulty in the hiring of qualified faculties in many law schools.

Keeping in view the challenges, the committee has prescribed a uniform curriculum for all undergraduate (UG) law courses, LLB, and redefining BCI’s role. For PG law courses, it said “uniform curriculum should be laid by an independent Authority as recommended by the Committee”.

Mandatory apprenticeship
The experts also directed the universities and BCI to make a two-month apprenticeship mandatory for UG courses for getting enrolled as an advocate. It has also suggested that students working as interns under seniors should be given stipends. Further, it asked the commission to incorporate practical training programs like moot court competitions to enhance oral advocacy and critical thinking skills.

“Topics such as law and medicine, sports law, energy law, tech law/cyber law, commercial and investment arbitrations, securities law, telecom laws, and banking laws must not only be included but must be given mandatory status as the interdisciplinary subjects,” it added.

Recognizing the disparities in legal education across various institutions, the Committee has called for a uniform curriculum to be laid down by the BCI for undergraduate courses in all law colleges and universities.

“It should enable learners to be ethical, rational, compassionate and prepare them for a gainful and fulfilling employment. There has to be innovative approaches towards curriculum development and course structuring that will provide a sharper and specialized focus towards training and capacity building for the future juridical officers,” the report states.

Additionally, it has recommended an independent authority for defining the curriculum for postgraduate and advanced legal studies.

Annual two-month Mandatory apprenticeship
The experts also directed the universities and BCI to make a two-month apprenticeship mandatory for UG courses for getting enrolled as an advocate. It has also suggested that students working as an intern under seniors should be given stipends. Further, it asked the commission to incorporate practical training programs like moot court competitions to enhance oral advocacy and critical thinking skills.

The Committee has also recommended that undergraduate law students undergo a mandatory two-month apprenticeship each academic year to gain practical experience before enrolling as advocates.

It has also recommended that law students who undergo internships with seniors should be paid stipends to encourage them and also to take care of their logistical expenses during such internships.

Funding of law universities

The Committee has urged law universities to come up a strategic and comprehensive approach to financing infrastructure needs. To this end, universities may garner funds through government funding, public-private partnerships, alumni contributions, corporate sponsorships, philanthropic foundations and grants, etc.

On using student fees to fund infrastructure, the report states,

“Law universities can allocate a portion of student fees and tuition towards infrastructure development and maintenance. It is important to strike a balance between affordable education and ensuring adequate resources for infrastructure. Clear communication with students about the utilization of their fees for infrastructure improvements can help generate support for such initiatives.”

Other changes recommended by the Committee include a re-look at the rule of National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) of levying ₹6 lakh as assessment fee on legal education institutions, promoting research initiatives at law schools, ensuring law graduates are well-versed in emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and blockchain, providing government funding and grants to law schools actively promoting technology integration, and encouraging student and faculty exchange programs to enhance global perspectives and collaboration within the legal education community.

READ FULL REPORT

STRENGTHENING LEGAL EDUCATION GIVEN EMERGING CHALLENGES BEFORE THE LEGAL PROFESSION