Back
: Purpose of 3-Year LLM Course is to Enable Lawyers to Continue Practice
Court Allows Advocate-Student to Pursue Exams Despite Attendance Deficiency, Emphasises Practical Training Balance
In a significant ruling that underscores the unique nature of legal education in India, the has observed that the core objective of the 3-year LLM programme is to permit lawyers to remain in active practice while simultaneously pursuing their postgraduate studies. The court was hearing a filed by Aditya Singh and others against the over attendance requirements.
Timing of Classes Clash with Court Duties
The petitioner, a second-semester LLM student enrolled in the 2023-2026 batch at the Faculty of Law, , was denied permission to appear in his semester examinations due to a shortfall in attendance. The required minimum attendance was 67.5%, but the student had only managed 43.5%. Represented by Advocate , the petitioner explained that the classes were scheduled at 12 noon, which is a peak time for court proceedings, making it difficult for a practising advocate to attend regularly.
The court took note of this practical difficulty. Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that the students pursuing the course are not required to suspend their Bar Licence, and the very design of the 3-year LLM programme contemplates balancing legal practice with academic pursuits.
Undertaking Accepted, Student Allowed to Continue
During the proceedings, the petitioner offered to execute a
to make up for the attendance shortfall in the succeeding semesters, and also agreed to pay any arrears of fees. The court found this to be a fair solution, observing that it
"promotes the objective of the LLM three-year course"
. Accordingly, the court directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to continue with his course and appear in the remaining examinations.
Key Observations from the Bench
Justice Jasmeet Singh made a pivotal observation that clarifies the behind the 3-year LLM structure:
"I am of the view that the very purpose of the LL.M. three year course is to enable students to while simultaneously pursuing their Masters program."
The court also noted that the order was being passed in the "" of the present case, implying that it should not be treated as a of attendance rules.
Petition Dismissed for Other Petitioners
While granting relief to petitioner Aditya Singh, the court dismissed the petition with respect to the other petitioners, as no one appeared on their behalf during the hearing. The petition was disposed of with the above directions.
The ruling is likely to be welcomed by law students who are also practising advocates, as it affirms that the 3-year LLM programme is designed to accommodate the realities of courtroom practice, rather than forcing lawyers to choose between their practice and further studies.
Case Title:
Case Number:
W.P.(C) 9643/2024 & CM APPL. 23421/2026
Date of Order:
Judge:
Justice Jasmeet Singh,
Subject Category:
Education Law – Attendance Requirements
