For years, Indian law aspirants have often viewed a National Law University (NLU) degree and a strong CLAT score as essential to building a successful legal career. But the international legal market offers another route for graduates who may not have studied at an elite Indian law school.

An Indian law graduate can pursue qualification as a solicitor in England and Wales through the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE). Importantly, a UK LLM is not a mandatory part of the qualification route.

The pathway is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and requires candidates to meet several requirements before they can be admitted as solicitors.

What Is the SQE Route?

The SQE is the centralised assessment used to qualify solicitors in England and Wales. Under the current route, candidates generally need to:

  1. Hold a degree or equivalent qualification;
  2. Pass SQE1;
  3. Pass SQE2;
  4. Complete two years of Qualifying Work Experience (QWE); and
  5. Meet the SRA's character and suitability requirements.

The degree does not have to be a UK law degree. The SRA states that the qualification can be a degree in any subject or an equivalent qualification, subject to its validation requirements. Overseas degrees are assessed for equivalence.

Indian LLB Graduates Can Explore the Route

For an Indian law graduate, the SQE provides a potential route into the English and Welsh legal profession without first completing a UK LLM.

However, an LLB alone does not make a candidate a solicitor in England and Wales. Candidates must clear both SQE assessments, complete the required QWE and satisfy the SRA's suitability requirements.

SQE1 tests functioning legal knowledge through two parts of single-best-answer multiple-choice assessments, while SQE2 assesses practical legal skills and the application of legal knowledge through written and oral assessments.

Is a UK LLM Mandatory?

No. A UK LLM is not required for qualification through the SQE route.

Some candidates may nevertheless choose an LLM for academic specialisation, networking or familiarity with the UK legal system. But it is not one of the SRA's mandatory qualification requirements.

This distinction can be important for Indian students considering the cost of overseas legal education.

Work Experience Is Crucial

Candidates must complete at least two years of full-time or equivalent Qualifying Work Experience before applying for admission.

QWE can be obtained before, during or after the SQE assessments and can be completed across up to four organisations. It can include work as a paralegal, placements, legal clinics, pro bono work or a training contract, provided the experience meets the SRA's requirements and is properly confirmed.

QWE can also be gained overseas, meaning candidates do not necessarily have to complete all of it in England or Wales.

What About Singapore and Hong Kong?

Qualification in England and Wales can strengthen an international legal profile, particularly for lawyers interested in cross-border transactions, arbitration and international law.

However, passing the SQE does not automatically grant the right to practise local law in Singapore or Hong Kong. Both jurisdictions have their own admission and regulatory requirements.

Therefore, students considering a career across multiple jurisdictions should treat England and Wales qualification as one component of an international legal career rather than a universal licence to practise.

Does an NLU Degree Still Matter?

An NLU degree can provide advantages through academic training, alumni networks, internships and recruitment opportunities. But it is not the only route to an international legal career.

For graduates from state universities or other recognised Indian law colleges, the SQE offers another possible pathway. The qualification itself, however, is not a shortcut to a high-paying job. Candidates still need strong legal knowledge, relevant experience, communication skills, commercial awareness and the right to work in the relevant jurisdiction.

The larger message for Indian law aspirants is that missing CLAT or not attending an NLU does not necessarily close the door to an international legal career. For students prepared to invest in the required examinations, experience and professional development, the SQE can provide a route to qualification as a solicitor in England and Wales without making a UK LLM compulsory.

A section of graduating students at the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR), Hyderabad, has urged the university administration to reconsider its decision to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest for the 2026 convocation.

Students from the 2025-26 graduating batch have written to the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, faculty members and other university officials, expressing concerns over the invitation and referring to recent judicial developments and remarks attributed to the CJI.

The students cited the ongoing controversy surrounding the NEET-related protests, remarks concerning demonstrations at Jantar Mantar and the controversy over Justice Surya Kant's reported reference to some young people as "cockroaches".

In their letter, the students said the invitation "does not sit right" with them, arguing that the CJI's reported remarks and recent developments have raised concerns about his approach towards students and young people.

"From referring to the youth as ‘cockroaches’ to making insensitive statements about not having time to watch videos of police brutality, the CJI has shown apathy towards students like us," the students wrote.

They further argued that inviting the CJI to the university to confer degrees would conflict with values they associate with constitutional accountability and academic freedom.

NALSAR Students Seek Reconsideration of Invitation

The graduating students have urged the university administration to reconsider the proposed invitation and said the issue should not be viewed as a concern raised by only one batch.

"We request the University Administration to reconsider its proposal to extend the invitation to the Hon’ble CJI, and hope that the University treat this as a shared concern across the graduating cohorts rather than one raised by a single batch," the letter stated.

The development has brought the debate surrounding Justice Surya Kant's remarks and the wider youth protests back into focus in an academic setting.

How Did the 'Cockroach' Controversy Begin?

The controversy surrounding the "cockroach" remark originated during a Supreme Court hearing in May concerning alleged fake law degrees and individuals entering the legal profession without proper qualifications.

Remarks made during the proceedings were subsequently circulated widely on social media. Some interpreted them as a reference to unemployed or young Indians, triggering criticism and giving rise to the satirical political initiative known as the Cockroach Janta Party, or CJP.

Justice Surya Kant later clarified that his remarks had been misconstrued. He said the reference was directed at people allegedly using fake or bogus degrees to enter professions such as law and journalism, rather than unemployed youth as a whole.

Cockroach Janta Party and Gen Z Protests

The Cockroach Janta Party was subsequently launched by Boston University student and political communications strategist Abhijeet Dipke.

Initially emerging as an online satirical response, the initiative later developed into a youth-led campaign using the cockroach as a symbol of resilience. Its supporters raised issues including unemployment, examination-related concerns and governance through social media campaigns and protests.

The group later participated in demonstrations, including protests at Delhi's Jantar Mantar, and became associated with the wider 2026 Gen Z protests.

The youth-led protests brought issues including examination irregularities, unemployment and police action against demonstrators into public focus. The use of the cockroach symbol became a prominent feature of the movement.

The NALSAR students' letter has now brought the controversy into the university environment, with students questioning whether Justice Surya Kant should preside over their convocation.

Justice Surya Kant became the Chief Justice of India on November 24, 2025, after serving as a Supreme Court judge since May 2019. He is scheduled to retire on February 9, 2027.

India's legal profession may be on the cusp of a significant transformation as the Supreme Court of India has proposed the establishment of a National Legal Academy (NLA), reviving the conversation around Continuing Legal Education (CLE) for advocates.

The proposal emerged from the Supreme Court's judgment in the Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association & Others case, in which the Court directed the Bar Council of India to constitute a committee for preparing a comprehensive framework for the proposed academy. The matter has also been listed for further consideration regarding institutionalising Continuing Legal Education and establishing the National Legal Academy.

Why Continuing Legal Education Matters

The legal profession is evolving rapidly as technology, artificial intelligence, digital governance, cybersecurity, financial regulation and international business reshape legal practice.

Unlike many professions that require regular certification or skill upgrades, India currently does not have a mandatory Continuing Legal Education system for practising advocates. As laws, judicial precedents and regulatory frameworks become increasingly complex, legal experts argue that structured professional learning has become essential for maintaining competence and delivering quality legal services.

CLE programmes typically include seminars, workshops, online courses and specialised training designed to help lawyers stay updated with legal developments and emerging practice areas.

Global Models of Mandatory Legal Education

Many developed legal systems have already institutionalised Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirements.

Countries including the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom require lawyers to complete approved professional development courses and earn continuing education credits to maintain their licences or professional standing.

These programmes ensure that advocates regularly update their knowledge, strengthen ethical standards and remain equipped to handle evolving legal challenges.

 

ALSO READ:  Why technology-focused legal education is shaping the future of law careers in the digital economy

 

India's Journey Towards Professional Training

The concept of structured legal training is not new in India.

Earlier, Section 24(1)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 required law graduates to complete an apprenticeship under senior advocates before enrolment. The system provided practical courtroom exposure, mentorship and ethics training.

However, this provision was removed in 1973, ending the compulsory apprenticeship model.

In 1995, the Bar Council of India introduced mandatory pre-enrolment training rules, but these were later struck down by the Supreme Court in V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, which held that the BCI lacked statutory authority to impose such requirements. As a result, India has remained without a structured nationwide mechanism for professional legal training after enrolment.

Supreme Court Revives the Debate

The recent judgment in Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association & Others has reignited discussions on professional development within the legal community.

While the primary dispute related to the inclusion of an advocate's name on the Indian Banks Association's caution list, the Court expanded the discussion to broader issues concerning professional independence, self-regulation and the need for institutionalised Continuing Legal Education.

The Bench directed the Bar Council of India to develop a framework for a proposed National Legal Academy and scheduled further proceedings to examine the institutionalisation of CLE across the legal profession.

 

ALSO READ:  AICLET 2026 preparation guide: Best strategy, syllabus, exam pattern and last-minute tips to score high

 

Potential Impact on the Legal Profession

If implemented, the National Legal Academy could provide a structured platform for continuous learning, specialised training and professional development for advocates throughout their careers.

Experts believe a formal CLE system could:

  • Improve legal competence and professional ethics.
  • Strengthen advocacy and courtroom skills.
  • Promote expertise in emerging fields such as AI, cybersecurity, data protection and fintech regulation.
  • Enhance access to high-quality legal education beyond law school.
  • Improve the overall quality of justice delivery.

As India's legal system adapts to technological and regulatory change, Continuing Legal Education is increasingly being viewed as an essential pillar for ensuring that advocates remain equipped to serve clients and the justice system effectively. The Supreme Court's proposal for a National Legal Academy marks a significant step towards modernising professional legal education and aligning India's legal training framework with international best practices




 

In a significant relief for thousands of students who participated in protests over the alleged NEET paper leak, the Supreme Court has clarified that the governments of Delhi and other states are free to close or withdraw First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against student protesters, provided they do not have criminal antecedents involving grave and heinous offences.

A Bench comprising Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi, and V. Mohana made it clear that the phrase "criminal antecedents" should be interpreted narrowly and applies only to individuals involved in serious and heinous crimes. The clarification aims to ensure that students who participated in peaceful demonstrations are not unfairly burdened with criminal cases.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, informed the court that the Centre remained committed to not pursuing criminal cases against peaceful student protesters, except in cases involving individuals with serious criminal backgrounds. He stated that FIRs against more than 2,700 people having antecedents related to grave and heinous offences would not be withdrawn.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioners, raised concerns over alleged police excesses during the protests. He informed the Bench that more than 300 videos documenting the incidents had been submitted before the court. According to him, the footage showed severe police action, including the use of lathis, pellet guns, and tear gas, against demonstrators. He also alleged that even the children of lawyers were assaulted during the protests.

Sankaranarayanan urged the court to direct the Delhi Police Commissioner and the Rapid Action Force (RAF) to investigate the actions of police personnel, particularly those seen in civilian clothing allegedly using excessive force. He argued that accountability was necessary for officers who exceeded their authority while handling the demonstrations.

The Supreme Court reiterated its earlier observations that peaceful protest is a constitutionally protected right and that police excesses or lathi charges cannot be justified merely because a public agitation is taking place. The Bench emphasized that law enforcement agencies must exercise restraint while dealing with peaceful demonstrators and review any allegations of misconduct.

The protests were triggered by allegations surrounding the NEET paper leak and intensified after a large student march towards Parliament on July 20, during which clashes broke out between protesters and security personnel. Police used lathis and tear gas shells to disperse the crowd after demonstrators attempted to breach security barricades.

The matter has now been listed for its next hearing on August 18, when the Supreme Court is expected to further examine issues related to police accountability and the status of criminal cases arising from the NEET protest demonstrations.

As technology transforms industries, governance and business, legal education is evolving to prepare graduates for a rapidly changing professional landscape. Recognising this shift, the Mahindra University School of Law has highlighted the growing need for interdisciplinary legal education through its integrated B.Tech LL.B. programme, which combines engineering and legal studies.

According to the university, the programme has been designed to equip students with the knowledge and skills required to address complex legal issues arising from emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, digital privacy, fintech, intellectual property and data protection.

Responding to a Changing Legal Landscape

Traditional legal education has largely focused on statutory interpretation, judicial precedents and courtroom practice. However, the rapid adoption of digital technologies has created new legal and regulatory challenges that require professionals to understand both technical systems and legal frameworks.

The integrated B.Tech LL.B. programme seeks to bridge this gap by enabling students to develop expertise in engineering concepts alongside legal reasoning. This interdisciplinary approach is intended to prepare graduates to analyse how technologies are designed, deployed and governed while understanding the legal implications associated with them.

Preparing Students for Emerging Careers

The university noted that the programme aims to build analytical thinking, problem-solving abilities and innovation-driven skills while strengthening students' understanding of governance, public policy and regulatory systems.

Graduates are expected to be well-positioned for careers in areas such as:

  • Artificial intelligence and technology regulation.
  • Cybersecurity and digital privacy.
  • Data protection and compliance.
  • Fintech regulation.
  • Intellectual property law.
  • Corporate legal advisory.
  • Public policy and governance.
  • Technology dispute resolution.
  • Innovation management and digital transformation.

As organisations increasingly rely on digital technologies, professionals with expertise in both law and technology are expected to play a vital role in shaping regulatory frameworks and ensuring responsible innovation.

Bridging Law and Technology

Commenting on the programme, Mahindra University School of Law stated that the future of legal education lies in producing professionals who can engage effectively with both the technical and legal dimensions of emerging challenges.

The university emphasised that integrating engineering with legal studies helps bridge the gap between science and jurisprudence, enabling graduates to contribute to policymaking, regulatory design and technology governance.

Meeting the Needs of the Digital Economy

With artificial intelligence, digital platforms and emerging technologies influencing nearly every sector, demand is growing for legal professionals capable of navigating complex regulatory environments.

Mahindra University believes its integrated B.Tech LL.B. programme reflects a broader shift towards future-ready legal education by combining technical expertise with legal knowledge. The interdisciplinary curriculum is intended to prepare students for careers that require an understanding of innovation, compliance, governance and technology-driven business models.

As the digital economy continues to expand, programmes that integrate law and technology are expected to become increasingly important in developing professionals equipped to address the legal, ethical and regulatory challenges of the future.

 

The Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association (TNMOA) has criticised the Tamil Nadu government after the Supreme Court directed the surrender of 151 vacant DM/MCh super-speciality seats earmarked for in-service government doctors to the All India Quota (AIQ). The association described the outcome as a legal and administrative failure that could adversely affect the state's public healthcare system.

The doctors' body, which had approached the apex court seeking to prevent the transfer of the seats, said the government's handling of the case reflected a lack of commitment to protecting the interests of government doctors and strengthening super-speciality healthcare services in Tamil Nadu.

TNMOA blames state government

In a statement issued after the court's order, the TNMOA expressed "deep anguish, disappointment and strong dissatisfaction" with both the Union and state governments.

The association alleged that the loss of the seats was the result of the Tamil Nadu government's failure to effectively defend its case before the Supreme Court.

"It is entirely the result of the legal and administrative failure of the state government. It reflects not only a failure to protect the rights of government doctors but also a serious lack of commitment towards safeguarding Tamil Nadu's public healthcare system and its future super-speciality services," the association said.

Doctors call it a public health issue

TNMOA State General Secretary Dr M. Akilan said the matter extended far beyond medical admissions.

"This is not merely about reserved seats for government doctors. It is a public health issue," he said, arguing that fewer in-service specialists would ultimately affect healthcare delivery across the state.

According to Akilan, the Tamil Nadu government had appointed senior advocates, including Abhishek Manu Singhvi, to represent it in the contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court. However, he alleged that the senior counsel did not appear during the hearing, leaving the Bench without detailed submissions on behalf of the state.

Association cites earlier court rulings

The TNMOA argued that previous judicial decisions had recognised the state's authority to regulate medical admissions and maintain a separate admission channel for in-service government doctors.

The association also referred to earlier rulings upholding 50 per cent reservation for in-service government doctors in super-speciality courses. It contended that the state should have argued that the 151 vacant seats formed part of Tamil Nadu's exclusive in-service quota and therefore should not have been diverted to the All India Quota.

Doctors also recalled an oral observation made by Justice B.V. Nagarathna during an earlier hearing, when the judge reportedly questioned how government doctors, who continue to perform official duties, could compete with candidates preparing full-time for the NEET Super Speciality examination.

The association maintained that the state failed to build upon this observation with stronger legal arguments during the final hearing.

Supreme Court's direction

In its order, the Supreme Court permitted the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) to proceed with the second round of counselling using the existing qualifying percentile.

The court further directed that if the qualifying percentile is lowered after the second round, 50 per cent of the additional seats made available under the revised cut-off should be reverted to Tamil Nadu.

While the order provides some scope for seats to return to the state in subsequent counselling, the TNMOA has maintained that the surrender of the 151 super-speciality seats represents a setback for government doctors and could have long-term implications for the availability of trained specialists in Tamil Nadu's public healthcare system.



 

In a major step towards reforming higher education, the Assam government has enacted the Assam State Higher Education Council (ASHEC) Act, 2026, establishing a new apex body to oversee universities and colleges across the state. The legislation aims to strengthen governance, improve academic quality, promote research and innovation, and align Assam's higher education ecosystem with the vision of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.

Announcing the development, Assam Education Minister Ranoj Pegu shared the key features of the new legislation on X, highlighting its role in creating a more coordinated, data-driven, and future-ready higher education system.

ASHEC to Serve as Apex Higher Education Body

At the heart of the legislation is the establishment of the Assam State Higher Education Council (ASHEC), which will function as the state's apex advisory and coordinating body for higher education institutions.

The council will guide universities and colleges on academic planning, institutional performance, governance reforms, and effective implementation of education policies. It is expected to strengthen coordination among higher education institutions while helping them improve governance practices and maintain high academic standards.

The move follows the recommendations of NEP 2020, which advocates the creation of strong State Higher Education Councils to streamline governance and improve educational quality across states.

State Higher Education Plan to Drive Long-Term Reforms

A major feature of the Act is the introduction of the State Higher Education Plan (SHEP), a strategic roadmap designed to support evidence-based policymaking and long-term planning.

The plan will enable the state to use higher education data for identifying institutional needs, planning infrastructure, improving academic programmes, and ensuring that policy decisions are aligned with the evolving requirements of universities and colleges.

Officials believe the initiative will create a more systematic approach to higher education planning while ensuring efficient utilisation of financial and institutional resources.

Focus on Quality, Research and Innovation

The ASHEC Act places significant emphasis on improving the overall quality of higher education in Assam.

The legislation encourages reforms in curriculum design, examination systems, accreditation processes, and institutional governance. It also seeks to promote research, innovation, entrepreneurship, and wider integration of technology in teaching, learning, and academic administration.

The council will work towards enhancing equity and excellence across institutions while helping universities remain competitive in the evolving higher education landscape.

Data-Driven Governance and Institutional Monitoring

To support informed policymaking, ASHEC will maintain comprehensive higher education statistics and regularly monitor institutional performance across the state.

The council will also contribute to national education databases, including the All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE), enabling better coordination between state and national education planning.

In addition, the legislation proposes improved coordination in funding allocation and infrastructure development to ensure educational resources are utilised efficiently across institutions.

Collaborative Governance Model

The new law introduces a collaborative governance framework by bringing together representatives from the state government, vice-chancellors, eminent academicians, regulatory bodies, and other higher education stakeholders.

The objective is to promote coordinated policy formulation, strengthen institutional development, and support continuous improvement across Assam's higher education sector.

While universities will continue to enjoy institutional autonomy, the Act also emphasises transparency, accountability, and adherence to high academic standards.

Aligned with NEP 2020 Vision

According to Education Minister Ranoj Pegu, the legislation closely aligns with the goals of NEP 2020, which envisions stronger governance structures, better planning mechanisms, and improved academic quality in higher education.

With the implementation of the Assam State Higher Education Council Act, 2026, the state aims to build a more structured, technology-enabled, research-oriented, and student-focused higher education ecosystem. The new framework is expected to support universities, colleges, faculty members, and students while strengthening Assam's contribution to India's broader higher education reforms under NEP 2020

More Articles ...