New Delhi, March 17 -- The Supreme Court on Monday expressed reluctance to intervene in the debate over the duration of the five-year integrated LL.B. course, saying such policy matters cannot be decided by courts, even as it underscored the importance of strengthening the quality of legal education in the country. Hearing a plea seeking reduction of the course duration to four years, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that while legal education is a critical issue, decisions on the structure and length of professional programmes require wider consultation among academic institutions, regulators and other stakeholders. "Legal education should be taught to children so that they know what are the basic laws. Teaching legal education is one issue and the quality of education is another issue. There has to be quality education," the bench said. The observations came as the court heard a public interest litigation filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, which seeks the constitution of a Legal Education Commission comprising eminent jurists, academics and legal experts to review the framework governing legal education in India, including the syllabus and duration of law courses. The petition specifically challenges the five-year integrated law programme, arguing that most professional courses in India are structured for four years and that the longer duration discourages talented students from choosing the legal profession. Upadhyay, who mentioned the petition for expedited listing, said. "This is a PIL to form a Legal Education Commission consisting of eminent jurists to frame the syllabus. All professional courses like CA and B.Tech are for four years and law is five. It is failing to attract the best talent," he submitted. Responding to the plea, the CJI said, "On legal education, the judiciary is just one stakeholder. There are many others...There should be deliberation with them...We cannot thrust our views."...