Weighing the pros and cons of reducing the course duration, Prof Bhardwaj said,
“Unlike the three-year standalone LL.B., where students have already done three years of college in whatever discipline, they come slightly more prepared for the law curriculum. In a five-year programme, we get almost ‘raw’ students. Some of them are not even sure if law is their cup of tea. That makes the entire learning slightly difficult, both for the teachers and the students. Entry into the law program at the age of 16-17 right after school is not a bad idea per se, given how well the five-year programmes have done in the last few decades, but it is the sheer length that can create a sense of fatigue.”
He also called for a rethink on the five-year programme as it exists.
“In a typical five-year program, students usually do approximately 52 courses. According to the Bar Council of India (BCI), they have to mandatorily do two English/language courses, 12 BA/BBA/other allied discipline courses depending on the program, four clinical courses like arbitration and Bar and Bench relations, professional ethics, etc, mandatorily do internships and the remaining are all the core law courses. This is a huge spread. Students who graduate from the three-year bachelor’s courses from good colleges with a good curriculum are employable after their degree. Similarly in law, the learning outcomes of the program overall can be compressed without compromising their ability to become good lawyers.”
Source: Barandbench
