Indian legal education is not “in transition.” It is structurally broken. For decades, superficial reforms have been marketed as progress while the core problems remain untouched. The outcome is predictable: confused graduates, unemployable degrees, mental burnout, and a profession flooded with poorly trained lawyers.
This is not outrage for effect. This is a diagnosis of systemic failure—and students are the ones paying for it.
1. The Curriculum Is Stuck in the Past
Most law colleges in India still teach law as if the profession has not evolved in decades.
Subjects are overwhelmingly theory-heavy and practice-light. Landmark judgments are memorized without understanding how they operate in real disputes. Drafting, negotiation, compliance, advisory work, and client interaction are treated as optional or extracurricular.
A student can graduate knowing statutory definitions but still be incapable of drafting a basic contract, plaint, or notice. That is not legal education; it is academic inertia.
Even institutions under the National Law Universities framework often prioritize moot courts, rankings, and publications over practical competence. The syllabus looks impressive on paper, but it rarely prepares students for actual legal work.
2. Faculty Quality Is Inconsistent and Largely Unaccountable
A significant portion of law faculty in India has little to no meaningful exposure to legal practice.
Criminal law is taught by people who have never conducted a trial. Contract law is explained without drafting experience. Procedural laws are reduced to exam-oriented theory, detached from courtroom reality.
In private colleges, hiring decisions are driven by cost efficiency rather than competence. In government institutions, promotions reward seniority, not teaching effectiveness. There is no serious national system to evaluate whether faculty members are capable of producing competent lawyers.
The result is predictable: students learn law from people who have never practiced it.
3. Regulatory Failure by the Bar Council of India
The Bar Council of India is tasked with regulating legal education. In practice, it has failed to discharge this responsibility.
Colleges with poor infrastructure, inadequate libraries, and low academic standards continue to operate, and their syllabus often remains outdated. Inspections are often predictable and superficial. Substandard institutions survive year after year with full regulatory approval.
This is not a lack of information. It is a lack of will.
When regulation collapses, exploitation becomes normalized.
4. Internship Culture Is Deeply Flawed
Internships are supposed to bridge the gap between education and practice. In India, they often act as formalities.
Many students pay for internships that offer little to no learning. Others are relegated to clerical or administrative tasks without mentorship or exposure to substantive legal work. Certificates become more important than skill acquisition.
It is common for students to graduate after five years of legal education without ever drafting a plaint, bail application, or agreement. This is not a student failure. It is institutional negligence.
5. The Elite–Non-Elite Divide Is Structural
The Indian legal profession operates on an unspoken hierarchy.
Graduates from elite institutions dominate tier-one law firm recruitment. Litigation chambers often prefer lineage, connections, or institutional branding. Students from non-elite or regional colleges start at a disadvantage regardless of competence or effort.
Merit is frequently discussed. Access determines outcomes.
The system does not correct this imbalance; it reinforces it.
6. Students Enter Law Without Informed Consent
Law is often sold as a stable, respectable career choice. The economic realities are rarely disclosed.
Litigation typically offers low or inconsistent income for several years. Corporate legal roles are limited and highly competitive. Alternative legal careers are barely discussed during law school.
Students invest five years of time and significant financial resources without understanding the professional risks involved. By the time reality becomes clear, the cost of exit is too high.
7. Mental Health Is Ignored
Law students operate under constant pressure: academic competition, uncertain career paths, financial stress, and systemic ambiguity.
Despite this, most law colleges lack structured counseling systems, mentorship programs, or career guidance mechanisms. Burnout is normalized. Struggle is romanticized. Silence becomes policy.
Who Ultimately Suffers?
Not regulators.
Not institutions.
Not professional gatekeepers.
Students suffer. And eventually, the justice system suffers with them.
Poorly trained lawyers do not only face personal failure. They weaken legal practice, delay justice, and erode public confidence in the rule of law.
What Actually Needs to Change
Meaningful reform requires structural intervention, not cosmetic adjustments.
Legal education must integrate mandatory practical training. Faculty recruitment must prioritize real-world competence. Non-performing law colleges must be shut down, not tolerated. Internship systems must be standardized and audited. Career education must begin in the first year. Legal education regulation must be independent, professional, and insulated from conflicts of interest.
Until these changes occur, no number of new institutions or revised syllabi will fix the problem.
Indian legal education does not consistently produce lawyers. It produces degree holders who must re-educate themselves to survive in practice.
The system survives because students adapt.
The system fails because institutions refuse to.
If this is not acknowledged honestly and addressed structurally, the crisis will continue—quietly harming students and openly damaging the justice system.
ALSO READ– Media Trials in India: Freedom of Press or a Threat to Fair Trial?
Connect with us on Instagram – X – LinkedIn for daily updates, quizzes, and other materials
