Why Delhi High Court said no to plea for 4-year LL.B

The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking directions to the Central government to constitute a ‘legal education commission’ to ascertain the feasibility of having a four-year LL.B course. .A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said the issue does not fall within the Court's domain and also stressed that the students must study non-law subjects as well."Not our domain... We don't design courses...You can't run down 5-year law course like this," the Court told Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, the petitioner in the case. After the Court said it would dismiss the petition, Upadhyay said he would withdraw the plea. The request was allowed. .During the hearing, Upadhyay argued that legal stalwarts like Ram Jethmalani and Soli Sorabjee had joined the profession at the age of 17 years and 21 years, respectively .The Court said their education never came to an end. "Look at their lectures and see how much they absorbed even after joining the profession," the Court said..When Upadhyay said that law students were being made to study subjects like history and economics, the Bench said that as law students, they must read these subjects also as a lot of innovation was happening in all those fields. The fields of law, science and technology are all connected, it remarked."If one has to practice law, he has to dabble in everything. He has to study income tax also. How can you say economics does not have a role. We do GST and other matters everyday. I wish I had studied economics... Engineering is also important. Have you tried understanding a SEP [Standard Essential Patent]," Justice Manmohan remarked..The Court also said a "certain bit of lack of knowledge" had led to the filing of the PIL."There is certain bit of lack of knowledge here on your part... Have you seen a mobile phone? How many patents does it have? 4000. You deal with a case and you will see how many... There are brilliant lawyers. This generation is very sharp and five year law course has contributed to it. You cannot run it down like this," it said..Upadhyay in his PIL also prayed that the Bar Council of India (BCI) be directed to constitute an expert committee of retired judges, jurists and educationists to examine the coherence of five year law course with the National Education Policy.The Court, however, said that it was not going to direct the BCI to consider Upadhyay's representation either. "We are not going to direct anything. They will decide it if they want to decide it," the Court made it clear. .In the PIL, Upadhyay's argument was that B Tech courses take four years of “non-superfluous education” and that too in a specified field of Engineering” whereas the BA LLB or BBA LLB colleges consume five years of a “student’s precious life while providing knowledge of Arts/Commerce, an unrelated and superfluous stream”.He further had argued that the existing five-year LLB course was manifestly arbitrary, irrational and in violation of the National Education Policy.“The present 5 years B.Law has been designed for extracting money and the most egregious part is that such dirty work is being done in the name of education. A five-year course is no benchmark for judging the legal expertise of any student,” the plea said. .Notably, Upadhyay had earlier filed a PIL in the Supreme Court seeking directions to allow students to pursue three-year LL.B. courses right after school.However, the apex court had refused to entertain the plea with Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud remarking that mature people are needed in the legal profession.