The Legal Education - Law Commission of India

8UGC, in its letter remarked that unfortunately in the Working Paperprepared by the Law Commission, no reference was made to the Report ofthe above Expert Committee.It further stated that the UGC Panel on legal education “was lookingforward for better inter-action among UGC and BCI, among others.” TheUGC then gave its views with regard to Chapters I and II of the LawCommission’s Working Paper. It referred to the proposed amendments tosec. 7(1)(h) and sec. 10(2)(b). Seeking greater representation for the lawteachers in the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India itsuggested that in the said Committee, it would not be necessary to have asmembers, the Secretary UGC or the Secretary, Ministry of Law as was thecase at present and that the Director of National Law School, Bangaloreneed not also be a member as proposed. It was stated that the UGC wasconstitutionally empowered to deal with ‘Standards of Legal Education’. Itmay here be stated that the above Expert Committee referred to by UGC,in its Report also regretted that the B.C.I. had not consulted either theUniversities or the UGC, at any stage. Various other suggestions weremade in the above letter on other matters.1.4 We may here add that a fresh ‘UGC Model Curriculum’ wasprepared in the year 2001 by the Curriculum Development Committee(CDC) constituted by the UGC in the year 2000. (This runs into 500 pages)In fact, the UGC panel on law had initiated the work of revision andupdating of the LL.M. and LL.B. (Hons) syllabi prepared by theCurriculum Development Committee in 1988-1990. It was stated that theBar Council of India has already presented texts of the course for LL.B. but