Indian law graduates seeking international career opportunities now have a more direct route to practise law in the United Kingdom through the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE), a standardised qualification pathway that enables overseas candidates to become solicitors in England and Wales without obtaining a UK Master of Laws (LLM) degree.

Introduced in 2021, the SQE replaced the previous solicitor qualification system and applies equally to domestic and international candidates. The new framework is increasingly attracting interest from Indian LLB graduates because it offers a regulator-recognised route to legal practice while potentially reducing the cost of pursuing a legal career in the UK.

To qualify as a solicitor in England and Wales, candidates must complete four key requirements. They must first hold a recognised university degree or an equivalent qualification. They are then required to pass SQE1, which assesses functioning legal knowledge across core subjects such as constitutional law, contract law, dispute resolution and business law. Successful candidates must subsequently clear SQE2, which evaluates practical legal skills, including client interviewing, advocacy, legal research, drafting and case analysis.

In addition to passing both examinations, aspiring solicitors must complete two years of Qualifying Work Experience (QWE), which can be gained through law firms, legal clinics, in-house legal teams or other approved legal settings. Candidates must also satisfy the regulator's character and suitability requirements before being admitted to the profession.

The SQE pathway is gaining popularity among Indian graduates partly because it offers a more affordable alternative to pursuing a UK LLM, which can often cost between ₹30 lakh and ₹60 lakh. However, legal experts caution that qualifying through the SQE does not guarantee employment with leading international law firms. Recruitment remains highly competitive, with employers placing significant emphasis on academic performance, practical experience, communication skills and commercial awareness.

As awareness of the SQE continues to grow in India, the pathway is expected to encourage more law graduates to explore international legal careers. While the qualification broadens access to the UK legal profession, long-term success will continue to depend on a combination of examination performance, qualifying work experience, professional networking and the ability to adapt to a global legal environment.

IIT Ropar, Punjab and Haryana High Court, PhD scholar, faculty harassment, higher education, and court order are in focus after the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Ropar to immediately reinstate a PhD Chemistry scholar, holding that her resignation was not voluntary and observing that the institute appeared to have acted in undue haste to remove her from the programme.

The case concerns Fatima Maqsood, who approached the High Court after her resignation from the PhD programme was accepted on November 22, 2025, a day after she submitted a complaint alleging harassment by eight faculty members. In her complaint to the institute's Director, she alleged that despite earlier warnings issued by the administration, the harassment had continued.

According to the court order, Maqsood submitted her resignation citing continued harassment that had caused distress to both her and her 67-year-old father. The resignation was processed and accepted on the same day, with recommendations from her supervisor, approval from the Head of Department and acceptance by the Registrar.

Hearing her petition, Justice Kuldeep Tiwari questioned the institute on whether any disciplinary proceedings or misconduct notices had ever been initiated against the scholar. The institute's counsel acknowledged that no such notice had been issued and that no disciplinary action had been contemplated.

The High Court noted that IIT Ropar continued to oppose Maqsood's reinstatement even after she filed an affidavit undertaking not to make further complaints against anyone at the institute and to focus on completing her doctoral research. The court observed that the institute's continued resistance reflected an apparent unwillingness to allow her to resume her studies.

Rejecting arguments related to Maqsood's subsequent enrolment at another research institution, the court held that those developments had no bearing on the legality of the resignation accepted in November 2025.

Relying on previous judgments of the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court concerning resignations made under compelling circumstances, Justice Tiwari ruled that Maqsood's resignation could not be considered voluntary. The court set aside the resignation order and directed IIT Ropar to allow her to rejoin the PhD Chemistry programme immediately.

The court also advised the institute's Director to facilitate a supportive environment for the scholar to complete her research, while clarifying that IIT Ropar would remain free to initiate disciplinary action if she violated the undertaking submitted before the court.

More than 650 law students from the University of Delhi (DU) will receive practical legal training in courts across the national capital under the fifth edition of the Dr B R Ambedkar Law Internship Programme, launched by the ABVP-led Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) in collaboration with Adhivakta Parishad Delhi Prant.

The internship, beginning July 1, aims to provide aspiring lawyers with first-hand exposure to India's judicial system through training in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, and various district courts.

Over 650 students were selected through the interview process

According to the organisers, the programme attracted 964 applications from students of the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.

Following an interview-based selection process, 657 students were shortlisted to participate in the internship.

The initiative is intended to bridge the gap between classroom learning and practical legal experience by exposing students to real courtroom proceedings and legal practice.

Practical exposure to India's judicial system

During the internship, students will work under the guidance of senior advocates and legal experts, gaining hands-on experience in various aspects of legal practice.

The programme will provide training in:

• Court procedures and judicial processes
• Legal drafting
• Advocacy and courtroom skills
• Case preparation
• Professional interaction with experienced lawyers
• Understanding the functioning of courts

Participants will observe proceedings in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and district courts, offering valuable insights into the justice delivery system.

Internship aims to strengthen legal careers

Speaking on the initiative, DUSU Secretary Kunal Chaudhary said the internship is designed to equip law students with practical legal knowledge while strengthening the foundation for their professional careers.

He added that the programme encourages students to contribute meaningfully to the justice system while reinforcing constitutional values through experiential learning.

Focus on mentoring future legal professionals

Sanjay Poddar, State President of Adhivakta Parishad Delhi Prant, described the initiative as more than a conventional internship programme.

According to him, the internship offers students an opportunity to closely understand the functioning of India's judicial institutions while receiving mentorship from experienced members of the legal fraternity.

He said the organisation remains committed to supporting young law students through practical exposure, professional guidance and skill development, to nurture competent legal professionals for the future.

The fifth edition of the Dr B R Ambedkar Law Internship Programme reflects the growing emphasis on experiential learning in legal education, providing Delhi University students with opportunities to develop courtroom skills and gain practical insights that complement their academic training.

In a significant ruling that could influence the interpretation of India's fertility laws, the Calcutta High Court has permitted a 49-year-old woman to undergo in vitro fertilisation (IVF) under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, even though her husband is 57 years old—two years above the statutory age limit prescribed for men.

The judgment reinforces the principle that a woman's eligibility for assisted reproductive treatment should not automatically be denied because of her spouse's age, particularly where donor gametes are being used and the husband has no direct physical role in the treatment.

What the Court Held

Justice Krishna Rao ruled that the woman's eligibility under the ART Act should be assessed independently.

The court observed that in the proposed IVF procedure, the husband would have no physical involvement because the treatment would use donor gametes obtained through a registered ART bank. Therefore, his age alone should not become an obstacle to the woman exercising her reproductive rights.

The court directed the hospital to proceed with the IVF treatment in accordance with applicable legal and medical requirements.

Reliance on Earlier Precedent

In reaching its decision, the High Court relied on its earlier judgment in the 2024 Shyamoli Saha case, where similar relief had been granted despite the husband exceeding the prescribed age limit.

Justice Rao observed that while age restrictions under the ART Act were introduced to prevent misuse and regulate assisted reproductive technologies, those provisions should not be interpreted in a manner that defeats the very purpose of the legislation.

The judgment also interpreted the definition of "patient" under the ART Act to mean that an individual partner may seek assisted reproductive services independently, provided the statutory requirements applicable to that individual are satisfied.

Background of the Case

The couple, married since 2014, had reportedly struggled with infertility for several years.

They approached the High Court after a hospital declined to provide IVF treatment because the husband had crossed the maximum age of 55 years prescribed under Section 21(g)(ii) of the ART Act.

According to their counsel, both spouses were medically fit for treatment, and the husband's age was the sole reason for the refusal.

The State opposed the petition, arguing that the ART Act expressly prescribes upper age limits for both men and women seeking assisted reproductive treatment.

Why the Judgment Matters

The ruling could have important implications for fertility treatment in India.

It suggests that, in certain circumstances, one partner's statutory ineligibility may not necessarily prevent the other from accessing assisted reproductive technologies, particularly where the treatment method does not require that partner's biological participation.

Legal experts believe the judgment may encourage ART clinics to examine applications more carefully rather than adopting a blanket interpretation of age-related provisions.

However, the decision is based on the facts of this specific case and does not automatically remove the age limits prescribed under the ART Act for all applicants. Broader changes to the legal framework would require either legislative amendments or further judicial clarification.

Balancing Regulation and Reproductive Autonomy

The judgment reflects the continuing effort of Indian courts to balance regulatory safeguards governing assisted reproductive technologies with individuals' reproductive autonomy.

As demand for fertility treatments continues to rise, the ruling is likely to become an important reference point in future cases involving the interpretation of age eligibility under the ART Act, particularly where questions of reproductive rights and access to medical treatment intersect.

A student who withdrew from a Master of Dental Surgery (MDS) programme just six days after admission has secured major relief from the Calcutta High Court, which directed a private dental college to refund ₹9.5 lakh and return all her original academic certificates.

The court ruled that educational institutions cannot retain students' original documents to compel payment of disputed fees, reinforcing the protection available under the UGC Fee Refund Policy 2024 and previous Supreme Court judgments.

Why the student left the MDS course

Dr Sreeparna Ghosh had enrolled in the MDS programme in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at the Haldia Institute of Dental Sciences and Research through the management quota in August 2024.

She paid approximately ₹9.5 lakh, including tuition, admission and student activity fees, and submitted her original educational documents, including her BDS degree, mark sheets, registration certificate, domicile certificate and internship completion certificate.

However, after attending classes for only six days, she decided to discontinue the programme, alleging that the institute lacked adequate educational facilities and proper academic guidance necessary for her professional growth.

On September 10, 2024, she formally sought withdrawal and requested both a fee refund and the return of her original certificates.

College allegedly demanded ₹18 lakh before releasing documents

According to the petition, the institute refused to return her documents unless she paid the remaining ₹18 lakh course fee, citing a discontinuation bond signed during admission.

The student argued that withholding her original certificates prevented her from practising dentistry or pursuing higher education elsewhere, leaving her career at a standstill.

High Court cites UGC refund policy and Supreme Court rulings

Justice Krishna Rao rejected the institute's contention that UGC fee refund guidelines did not apply to dental colleges.

Referring to the UGC Fee Refund Policy issued on June 12, 2024, the court observed that students cancelling admission before September 30, 2024, are entitled to a full fee refund. Since Dr Ghosh applied for withdrawal on September 10, the court held that she qualified for a complete refund.

The court also clarified that even if an institution believes money is recoverable under a discontinuation bond, it cannot withhold original educational documents to enforce payment. Any financial dispute must instead be resolved through appropriate legal proceedings.

Court directs refund and return of certificates

Allowing the petition, the Calcutta High Court directed the Haldia Institute of Dental Sciences and Research to:

• Refund the entire ₹9.5 lakh paid by the student.
• Return all original academic certificates and testimonials.
• Complete both actions within two weeks of receiving the court order.

Why the judgment matters

The ruling reinforces an important principle for students across India: educational institutions cannot use original academic certificates as leverage in fee disputes. The judgment also strengthens the practical implementation of the UGC Fee Refund Policy 2024, ensuring that students who withdraw within the prescribed period are protected from arbitrary financial demands and document retention.

In a significant ruling that highlights the continuing importance of physical classrooms in higher education, the Madras High Court has held that artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT cannot substitute the role of qualified teachers in imparting knowledge, ethics and professional values to students.

The judgment came while the court was hearing a case related to attendance requirements for law students and has reignited the debate on the role of technology in education, particularly as institutions increasingly adopt digital learning platforms.

A division bench comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar observed that while technological advancements and online learning resources can support education, they cannot replace the dynamic and interactive environment of a classroom. The judges stressed that professional education, especially legal studies, involves much more than the transfer of academic information.

According to the court, qualified lecturers play a crucial role in shaping students' character, integrity, morality and professional ethics—qualities that cannot be effectively taught through artificial intelligence systems or virtual platforms alone. The bench noted that classroom discussions, debates and exchanges of diverse viewpoints help students develop critical thinking skills and a deeper understanding of constitutional values and social responsibilities.

"Artificial intelligence tools may assist learning, but they cannot replicate the human interaction and mentorship essential to legal education," the court observed while underscoring the importance of regular classroom engagement.

The ruling came in the context of a dispute over attendance requirements prescribed by the Bar Council of India (BCI). The court upheld Rule 12 of the BCI Legal Education Rules, which mandates a minimum attendance of 70 per cent for law students. The rules permit relaxation up to 65 per cent only under exceptional circumstances.

The division bench set aside an earlier order of a single judge that had allowed students with significantly lower attendance to appear for examinations. The court maintained that existing regulations must be strictly followed unless they are formally amended by the competent authority.

The case involved three students of Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University whose attendance records ranged between 37 per cent and 46 per cent. Due to inadequate attendance, the university had barred them from appearing in semester examinations and directed them to repeat the academic year.

Earlier, a single judge had granted relief to the students and recommended that the Bar Council reconsider its attendance norms in light of changing educational practices. However, the university challenged the order before the division bench, arguing that attendance regulations are essential to maintaining academic standards and professional discipline.

Allowing the university's appeal, the High Court reinstated the original attendance requirements and emphasised that students who regularly attend classes should not be placed at a disadvantage compared to those who fail to meet prescribed academic obligations.

The judgment arrives at a time when the issue of mandatory attendance is under national scrutiny. The Supreme Court is currently examining the broader question of attendance requirements in higher education after staying a Delhi High Court order that had restrained institutions from debarring students from examinations on the basis of low attendance.

Legal experts believe the Madras High Court's decision could influence the ongoing national debate by reinforcing the view that attendance remains a critical component of professional education. The ruling underscores the judiciary's recognition that while technology can enhance learning, the classroom continues to be central to developing competent, ethical and socially responsible professionals.

As educational institutions increasingly integrate artificial intelligence into teaching and learning processes, the judgment serves as a reminder that technology is best viewed as a supplement rather than a replacement for human educators and face-to-face academic engagement.