This is a messed up suggestion in so many ways. I find it hard to understand how someone can actually propose this in all seriousness, so I am going to take the time and effort to explain why this is wrong.

When I entered NLS, I found myself looking at the "arts" courses with scorn. The received wisdom was that these courses were a fig-leaf that checked a box ( they were the "BA courses", since you couldn't do an LLB without a prior degree. Unless it was an integrated course).

I was so wrong.

Every one of those courses shook me, changed my prior ideas of a lot of things, and gave me the tools to see society and the world around us differently. They taught me that life does not have neat solutions that you can tie in a box and gift to your masters, and that there are trade-offs to every single decision you take. They taught me how power and hierarchies work ​(if you think these are not important concepts even in basic contracts, you are wrong).

As for your idea of scrapping "soft" courses, those courses are there because they are important to People Who Are Not You. Just to take 2 examples:

A lawyer trained in Family law can change the life of a widow battling her in -laws.

A lawyer trained in Labour law can fight to get a safe working environment for women.

If NLUs don't train their lawyers in these, who will? Do you want to push these subjects to "tier-2 law colleges", consciously signaling that these are not important, and hence do not deserve time, attention, and funding?

Oh, I forgot. You do.

NLS alumni (and probably alumni from other colleges, I am not qualified to comment on them) have done far-reaching things in exactly the kind of things that you deem worthless. They have changed lives, they have challenged entrenched mindsets, and they have shown how law can better society.

Let me throw this question right back at you. Why is it more important to produce more M&A lawyers than Human Rights lawyers?

The point of a law college is to produce people trained in law. I would also argue that their purpose is to open doors for their students, show the students what is possible, and then let the students decide what they want to do. It is not up to the law college to push their students into Commercial Law, or Environmental Law, or anything else, for that matter. Let the lawyer decide- but let them make informed decisions.

I have seen 9 batches of law students. At least 4-5 people from each batch (the number is higher, but lets stick to 4-5) are working in the fields that you deem useless.

That is around 40 lawyers, just from the people I know, from one law college. 40 lawyers who dared to abandon the safe Corporate Law path, and instead chose to do different things.

These 40 lawyers are changing the world, one step at a time. I admire and am proud of them. I sometimes wish I could emulate them, and follow in their footsteps.

There are many lawyers who want to chuck corporate law and do the kind of work you mock and scoff at. They are all waiting until they have saved up enough money. Sometimes, we sheepishly acknowledge that our professors were right, after all, and we were arrogant kids who thought we had all the answers.

You will learn, too, one day. We all do.

You're to a humanities course and making it "market oriented". That's like going to an engineering student and teaching him how to make pakodas. Yeah, students might make some money, but that's not the bloody point of that course. Uski education ka point robot banana hai, jalebi nahi. The point of legal education is not solely to serve the corporate overlords.

Menon didn't ensure that the law schools would be affordable or inclusive for the mass. Hence, the number of 'social engineers' produced so far has been few and far between. The law school experiment has mostly been a failure in that direction. Most of the NLUs are stagnating these days and their contribution to legal education all over the country is highly limited.

1. How do you expect to get a dual degree without actually doing any of the BA subjects (or even just 2)? Also, just do a BBA LLB if you don't like the arts subjects , some colleges offer that.
2. Just don't take the electives you don't want? Let people have more options, not everyone wants to join a corporate law firm or do commercial lit/arb.
(Although in my opinion it is people like you that need arts subjects and the things you incorrectly characterize as 'soft law electives' more)

Human Rights, Gender and Law, and Law and Poverty are soft law? What kind of sick dystopian world do you inhabit, my friend? You essentially want to turn the B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) into a vocational training course for law firms; you can, but I would presume not everyone shares your view of the B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) being a capitalism certificate, do they?

Steps to do this:

1. Make the 5 year course into 3.5 years (cancelling internship breaks and reducing holidays). After 3.5 years, have a 1.5 year long internship, after which the degree will be awarded.

2. Scrap all BA courses, except two (see below). Have only law courses.

3. Introduce Business Communication and English as a compulsory course (the only BA course).

4. Put more emphasis on CPC, CrPC, Company Law, Tax Law, Insurance Law, Real Estate Law, Arbitration and Tech Law. Reduce emphasis on Labour Law and Family Law (both 1 course instead of 2 courses).

5. Have drafting exercises for all subjects, instead of research essays.

6. Change CLAT to an exam testing only English comprehension (at a high level), logical reasoning (at a moderate level) and maths (at a low level: only class 8 level stuff).

7. Scrap all soft law electives like Human Rights, Gender and Law, Law and Poverty etc.