Justice Chandrachud Calls for Regional Language Legal Education Amid Growing Divide in Access

The ideal of legal education as a gateway to justice in India is increasingly under siege, undermined by prohibitive costs, linguistic exclusion , and a systemic bias that privileges the affluent. Former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has injected a powerful voice into this debate, calling for legal instruction in Hindi and other regional languages. His remarks, delivered at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University in Lucknow, underscore a growing recognition that the current model of legal education not only perpetuates inequality but also contradicts the constitutional promise of equal access to justice .

The Cost of Entry: Fees as a Filter

Discrimination begins long before a student steps into a law school classroom. The Consortium of National Law Universities , the apex body conducting the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), charges a non‑refundable application fee of ₹4,000 for general category students and ₹3,500 for those from SC/ST/PwD categories. For a lower‑middle‑class family, this sum is substantial, and the fact that it is non‑refundable—even for those who do not secure admission—adds to the financial burden. “The Consortium charges an application fee of Rs 4000 for General Category students and Rs 3500 from students belonging to SC/ST/ PWD category,” notes the analysis, pointing to a structural barrier that filters out economically weaker candidates.

Once admitted, the financial strain only intensifies. The semester fees at the top five National Law Universities ( NLUs ) hover around ₹1 lakh or more, translating to an annual expenditure of approximately ₹2 lakh. Over the five‑year integrated LLB programme, a student may pay upwards of ₹10 lakh. Private tier‑1 universities are even more expensive, with total fees ranging from ₹30 to ₹40 lakh. A study cited in the analysis reveals that nearly 50% of students in top NLUs come from families with a monthly income exceeding ₹1 lakh. Most of these students had access to expensive CLAT coaching, a privilege largely unavailable to those from underprivileged backgrounds. As a result, the composition of premier law schools remains overwhelmingly elite, undermining diversity and equal opportunity.

Language as a Barrier: Justice Chandrachud’s Intervention

The medium of instruction in legal education has long been a source of exclusion. English, while dominant in courtrooms and law firms, remains a formidable obstacle for students from non‑English medium backgrounds. Former Chief Justice Chandrachud, while addressing students at RMNLU , emphasised that “ access to justice must be made more accessible to the public and it can only happen if the medium of instruction for legal education gets modified.” He expressed hope that the university would offer legal education in Hindi and other regional languages in the future.

The Bar Council of India ’s ( BCI ) Rules of Legal Education, 2008 , ostensibly permit students to write semester examinations in Hindi or any regional language, provided English is taken as a compulsory subject. Yet the ground reality is starkly different. Most institutions, including many tier‑2 and tier‑3 colleges, insist on English as the sole medium of instruction . A study of top NLUs found that nearly 70% of students came from elite families where both parents spoke fluent English. This linguistic homogeneity reinforces a culture where students from vernacular backgrounds struggle to cope with the curriculum, participate in moot courts, or even articulate their arguments effectively.

The Business of Legal Education

Critics argue that NLUs and private universities have transformed legal education into a profit‑driven enterprise. “The policy adopted by the NLUs has gradually made and turned the idea into a business model, similar to the private universities and the coaching institutions,” the analysis asserts. The high tuition and hostel fees, coupled with on‑campus placements in multinational law firms, have fostered a corporate culture that prioritises revenue over equity. Coaching centres, with their advertisements promising “100% guaranteed selection into Top NLUs ,” further commodify the admission process.

This commercialisation leaves little room for students from lower‑middle‑class families. Even those who manage to secure admission often rely on bank loans, as scholarships offered by NLUs are inadequate. The result is a system where financial capability, rather than merit, determines access to quality legal education.

The Widening Gulf Between Tier‑1 and Tier‑3 Institutions

For students who cannot afford the fees of NLUs or top private universities, the only option is tier‑3 colleges—often state‑funded institutions that remain trapped in outdated pedagogical methods. “Most of these colleges do not focus on co‑curricular activities, rather they still follow the traditional approach of legal education which is rote learning and giving semester examinations,” the analysis notes. Moot court competitions , legal aid clinics , seminars, and essay‑writing contests are rare in these institutions. When such activities are conducted, they are exclusively in English, further discouraging participation from non‑English medium students.

The consequences are profound. Students from tier‑3 colleges graduate with limited skills in communication, legal research, and advocacy, widening the gap between them and their peers from tier‑1 institutions. Legal aid clinics , which are common in NLUs and some private universities, are virtually absent in tier‑3 colleges. This disparity not only hampers the professional growth of individual students but also undermines the broader goal of producing a diverse and competent legal workforce.

Constitutional Imperative and the Way Forward

The discrimination embedded in the current system runs contrary to the constitutional principles of equality ( Article 14 ), non‑discrimination ( Article 15 ), and the right to access justice ( Article 21 ). The analysis calls for urgent scrutiny by administrative and judicial bodies. Reforms must address multiple fronts: rationalisation of fee structures, enhancement of need‑based scholarships, introduction of regional language instruction as a genuine option, and mandatory establishment of legal aid clinics in all law colleges.

Justice Chandrachud’s call for regional language legal education is a timely reminder that access to justice cannot be achieved if the legal profession itself remains inaccessible to large sections of society. The growing divide between tier‑1 and tier‑3 institutions is not merely an academic concern—it is a constitutional crisis that demands immediate and sustained intervention. Only by dismantling the economic, linguistic, and institutional barriers can legal education fulfill its promise as a truly noble profession open to all.