The
introduction of the five-year integrated LL.B. programme in 1987 marked a
paradigm shift in Indian legal education, explicitly designed to embed legal
training within the broader intellectual frameworks of the humanities, social
sciences, and commerce. This reform was intended to produce legally trained
professionals who understood law as a social institution. However, a
significant contradiction has emerged: the faculty recruited to teach these
essential interdisciplinary subjects are often categorised as
"non-law" teachers. This label creates a symbolic and institutional
hierarchy that marginalises their contributions and undermines the very
interdisciplinarity the curriculum promises.
This
article, drawing on the author's lived experience as a sociologist within a law
faculty, interrogates this persistent divide. It situates the "law"
versus "non-law" binary within the historical evolution of Indian
legal education, examining its regulatory foundations and institutional
manifestations. The paper argues that the term "non-law" is a
misnomer that is intellectually untenable and institutionally harmful. Law is
inherently interdisciplinary, pulling its legitimacy and vitality from
sociology, political science, history, and economics. Through a combination of
historical analysis, policy review, comparative perspective, and
autoethnographic reflection, this article demonstrates how this hierarchical
distinction stifles pedagogical innovation and critical research. It concludes
by advocating for a more inclusive institutional framework that recognises the
constitutive role of all disciplines in legal education.
