In an attempt to seal the spread of unapproved Master of Law (LLM) courses completed in online and open and distance learning (ODL) modes, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has given a stern warning. The regulatory authority has stated that the degrees in LLM acquired without its prior approval, especially the ones done online, by hybrid modes, or under deceptive designations like “LLM Professional,” “Executive LLM,” or “MSc Law” will not be valid for academic appointments, UGC-NET, admission to PhD programmes, or recruitment to judicial service.

The advisory underscores BCI’s long-standing stance that hybrid and ODL-based legal education cannot be equated with traditional classroom-based learning. As per the BCI’s reaffirmation in 2020, such programmes lack the pedagogical rigor and immersive structure necessary for legal education. The regulatory body argues that law, being a professional discipline, demands a depth of academic engagement that cannot be replicated in flexible or part-time formats.

In a letter to vice-chancellors of law colleges, the BCI added a letter of Justice Rajendra Menon, erstwhile Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and co-chairperson of the Standing Committee on Legal Education. The letter, to all high courts too, asked them to take cognisance of colleges flouting legal education norms. These institutions have been found offering postgraduate legal courses in unconventional formats without securing mandatory approvals from the BCI, risking the legitimacy of such degrees.

Experts have echoed BCI’s concerns, warning that candidates holding these unapproved qualifications may find themselves at a disadvantage. Several law universities and colleges only consider candidates with a full-time LLM degree for teaching positions, making online or hybrid degree holders ineligible. Para-professional and online courses, whatever name they may go by, have to be stopped since they water down the legal education standards, opines Vageshwari Deswal, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi (DU).

Deswal added that the above pseudo-names like “LLM Executive” or “LLM (Professional)” are sometimes employed to create a veneer of respectability over otherwise scholastically subpar degrees. These courses, being part-time or online, do not live up to the high scholarly standards prescribed by the BCI. She continued further to say that colleges providing such degrees are enormously profit-oriented, boosting seat capacities and enrollments without keeping academic standards intact.

BCI had itself issued a circular in May 2024 (BCI-0468-2024) laying down very precise norms for legal education, but some of them still go on to disregard the same norms. Deswal introduced DU’s own instance of a full-time two-year and part-time three-year LLM, wherein even the former is taught in physical mode post-5 PM. The longer duration itself indicates the intensity and level to be maintained at the postgraduate level.

Agreeing with similar views, Faizan Mustafa, Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Patna, opined that the concept of an executive LLM is as much an executive MBA — more a professional development than learning. He clarified that though online LLMs without the BCI sanction might still be valid for corporate or government jobs in non-teacher roles, they will not be acceptable for teaching law or for opting for doctoral courses.

Apart from this, regulatory authorities have also made similar statements on this issue. The Distance Education Bureau (DEB) of the UGC in 2023 prohibited online course delivery of professional courses like law, engineering, and medicine without statutory approval. This is now compulsory for institutes to avoid presenting such courses unless they obtain clearance from respective authorities. Mustafa reaffirmed that anyone interested in becoming a teacher of law should join an approved course by both the BCI and the UGC.

The BCI intervention also has implications for institutional recognition. Without guaranteed compliance with regulations, private colleges and universities operating these illegal programmes will be at risk of losing their credibility and will be derecognized and heavily penalized. Such students from these programmes will be placed in a regulatory limbo with limited academic and career prospects.

In spite of opposition from regulations, there are some who feel that ODL and flexible LLM models bring much-needed mobility and access to working professionals and others with personal or geographical constraints. Nevertheless, such flexible models are disadvantaged because they lack formalized academic delivery, full-time study, and constant mentorship needed for postgraduate legal studies, points out Prof V Balakista Reddy, chairman, Telangana Council of Higher Education. He is of the opinion that the future is to harmonize UGC and BCI norms with one another via interaction rather than unilaterally.

Essentially, the BCI has established: unless LLM degrees are recognized and accredited within its legislative framework, they would not be valid for central academic and professional legal streams. It is a clear indicator of a policy shift in legal education, maintaining academic intensity, regulatory compliance, and pedagogical integrity at the core of India’s legal education system.