The nature of the legal profession today is entirely incomparable to what it was even just a few years ago. The changes that the profession has been subject to are manifold. One such change is in the nature of career options that law graduates could aspire to pursue.

Just a decade ago, an average law graduate would have been faced with a choice between chamber practice, law firms, judicial clerkships, civil services or in-house legal work. This is not to say that there weren’t those who sought passion projects, or what could be considered “alt-law” careers. But the proportion of such students was negligible at the time, when compared with today, when we see how the law degree is proving increasingly to be a gateway qualification.

Today’s law graduate is capable of building a career in law by clubbing it with almost any area. A very good example for this would be in sports and entertainment law. From a world where you were either classified as a civil law or criminal law practitioner, today we can have lawyers build entire practices out of what was once classified as a “niche” areas of legal application. What was once “alt-law” no longer is classifiable as such because the concept of “alt-law” itself has undergone a paradigm shift.

Another relevant change would be in the internationalisation of the profession itself. This was made most explicit during the pandemic, with courts demonstrating a willingness to hear cases through video conferencing. Although the technology that enabled this process of entering appearance was not new, it was embraced more readily and without any contempt or ire in a post-pandemic world. This in turn expanded the horizons of lawyers who were, at least until this moment in time, limited by their geography. A lawyer based in Karnataka is now able to appear not only in matters before other Indian courts, but could also represent clients in proceedings taking place anywhere in the world.

In this context, the question is – are our law graduates being appropriately prepared to meet these new-age situations by law schools? First and foremost, considering the varied degree of rigour and frequency of curriculum review and revision across different law schools, it would be a credit to some and disservice to others to classify all Centres of Legal Education (CLEs) as a monolithic entity.

With that caveat in mind, we must now scrutinise the standards set by the Bar Council of India (BCI) in their Rules of Legal Education, 2008. One of the stated objectives of these Rules is to set standards of legal education and recognise degrees in law for the purpose of enrolment as advocates in India. These Rules serve to identify a minimum standard when it comes to regulation of CLEs. That being said, we must analyse where exactly that standard falls in the relative scale of legal education.

For example, Schedule II accompanying these Rules identifies a list of compulsory subjects that must be taught at every CLE, followed by a list of different law groups from which the CLEs may pick certain courses to be taught (electives). It is interesting to note that certain courses such as Human Rights Law and Practice, Interpretation of Statutes and Principle of Legislation, and Law and Economics, among others, are identified in the electives list. Furthermore, subjects within the realm of Intellectual Property and Technology Law are considered only as options that CLEs might choose to employ, and not as compulsory subjects that every law student must necessarily engage with. It becomes painfully apparent now that the prescriptions mandated as part of these Rules are fairly dated and cater to an exceedingly low standard of operation. In effect, the Rules and the manner in which they function serve as an impediment to its ability to accomplish their stated goal.

Additionally, the lack of coordination between the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the BCI in terms of the regulation of CLEs has also contributed in its own way towards hindering the facilitation of better legal education in India. One instance of this can be observed in the context of the Ph.D. degree requirement envisaged under the draft UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2025 (UGC Rules). These Rules specify that a faculty member can be hired as an Assistant Professor without a doctoral degree, but his promotion to Associate Professor is contingent on his securing of a Ph.D. degree. While they do provide for the concept of a Professor of Practice, only 10% of the sanctioned posts would be eligible for this classification.

To meet global legal needs, we need to develop professionals who are not just theoretically sound, but also effective practitioners. By undervaluing the role that practitioners play in the educational process, we are creating structural barriers that impede a young legal professional’s ability to be competitive in a global workforce.

There are two regulatory schemes which restrict the recruitment of good quality faculty to CLEs. The first are these UGC Rules, which link a doctoral qualification directly to teaching aptitude. This in turn creates an environment where young and aspiring academics feel hamstrung to enter doctoral pursuits without having the opportunity to consider their research interests or academic inclinations. This reduces the pursuit of a doctoral education to a mere notch that one must acquire to claim legitimacy in academia. This has a downstream effect on not only the quality of teaching and research, but also the quality and competency of the graduates emerging from this system of education. To eliminate this fallacy, the UGC must consider de-linking teaching aptitude with doctoral studies, and identify ways to include practical experience in its metric for evaluating teaching competencies.

The second are the rules governing advocates, which limit an academic from practice due to the status of their employment. While recognising the ethical complications that caused the introduction of “pure” legal academicians, it is relevant to appreciate how the regulations have effectively reduced a Ph.D. degree to a box that one must tick. This affects the credibility of a doctoral pursuit in Indian higher education institutions. Furthermore, the existing legal framework also hinders the ability of academicians from being able to benefit from exposure to the practice. This affects the quality of research that they engage in and limits their ability to bring that experience into a classroom for the benefit of their students.

Another stakeholder in this process are the CLEs themselves, which are required to implement the BCI Rules. As mentioned earlier, the BCI Rules in themselves identify the lowest common denominator in terms of what would be the bare essential standards that a CLE must comply with in order to legitimise its degree. But these Rules by no means impose any barriers on CLEs to go above and beyond to impart legal education and mould the next generation of effective legal professionals. In fact, the law schools that take up the challenge of actively developing an innovative curriculum will be better equipped to create an environment where law students can upskill themselves to cater to the increasingly competitive legal job market.

CLEs must recognise that clinging to the old, archaic and familiar structures from yesteryear might aid in facilitating institutional convenience, but will simultaneously handicap their students in finding their place as effective peers of those who learnt and benefitted from experiences provided by CLEs that evolved with the demands of their times.

In the end, it is also relevant to consider that an individual is the master of their own fate. A student in the most favourable of circumstances, with the best of opportunities, will still only be as competitive as they allow themselves to be. While there is undoubtedly a great deal that the system can do to aid in enabling the next generation of law graduates, it also bears remembering that the students also owe it to themselves to recognise that they are entering a challenging profession, and that they must work to distinguish themselves from their peers in order to accomplish their own lofty goals.

Ashwin Mishra is a Associate Professor and Associate Dean at the School of Law, RV University, Bengaluru.