Delhi High Court directed the Bar Council of India not to take any decision on its show cause notice against Dentons Link Legal, which is facing allegations of violating rules linked to foreign law firms’ entry.
The Delhi High Court instructed the Bar Council of India (BCI) on Thursday to refrain from making a decision regarding its show cause notice against Dentons Link Legal, which is accused of breaching regulations related to the entry of foreign law firms.
The Court expressed its disapproval of the BCI’s choice to issue a press release while the matter was still in the show cause phase, deeming it inappropriate, and directed the BCI to reconsider the release.
Also Read: Supreme Court to BCI: Do Not Interfere in Legal Education Matters
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela criticized the BCI for naming the firm in the press release prior to resolving the show cause notice.
They stated,
“Issue notice to the respondents. List this matter on Thursday to enable the counsels for respondents to seek instructions as to how the press release has been issued specifically naming the petition/firm. Prima facie we find that such a press release could not have been issued keeping in fact that a show cause notice has been issued in respect of the same issue. In the aforesaid view, we require the Bar Council of India to revisit the press release. The petitioners may submit a reply and the proceedings may go on, however a final decision cannot be taken till the next date of hearing.”
Dentons Link Legal has mounted a dual challenge: first, to the notice issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI) requiring disclosures about its collaboration with Dentons; and second, to the legitimacy of the BCI regulations concerning the entry of foreign law firms into India.
The firm contended that the Advocates Act of 1961 does not grant the BCI the authority to create such regulations. They pointed to Sections 49(1)(c) and (e), which stipulate that the Council must obtain prior approval from the Chief Justice of India before formulating rules of this nature. In the absence of such approval, they argued, the regulations are ultra vires the parent statute.
It was argued that the regulations focus solely on foreign lawyers and law firms without defining what constitutes an “Indian law firm.” By imposing obligations on Indian firms collaborating with foreign entities, the BCI has overstepped its authority, the counsel argued. Dentons Link Legal, as a wholly Indian-owned and registered firm, should not be subjected to regulations intended for foreign law firms.
Another objection raised was that the regulations are being applied retroactively to arrangements made before their amendment in 2025. The firm asserted that such retrospective application is legally impermissible.
The firm emphasized that its collaboration with Dentons is not an integrated practice, and thus does not violate any restrictions on the practice of law in India.
On procedural grounds, Dentons Link Legal claimed that the show cause notice (SCN) was incomplete and effectively an adjudicatory order. They pointed out that the BCI issued a public press release without disclosing the evidence it relied upon, thereby prejudicing the firm.
In response, the BCI maintained that issuing a press release is part of its regulatory function.
However, the Court remarked,
“Giving a press release would amount to pre-determining the issue. You are only a regulator. How can you issue a press release before adjudicating the show cause notice? Show us the provision that gives you the authority to put the names here and give a press release.”
Chief Justice Upadhyaya noted that the press release effectively declared that the two firms had violated BCI regulations.
He questioned,
“Without determining the issue or adjudicating it, you are recording findings?”
The Court subsequently asked the BCI’s lawyer to clarify whether they intended to withdraw the press release, given these deficiencies.
Dentons Link Legal was represented by Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Arvind Nigam. On August 5, 2025, the BCI issued a press release warning against unauthorized collaborations between Indian and foreign law firms.
The Council specifically highlighted the combinations of CMS IndusLaw and Dentons Link Legal, cautioning that such arrangements, if unregistered, would violate the Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2023, as amended in 2025.
The BCI pointed out that many of these collaborations are structured as Swiss Vereins, strategic alliances, exclusive referral models, or joint branding initiatives, which are then presented to the public under combined names like “Dentons Link Legal” and “CMS IndusLaw.”
According to the Council, these arrangements effectively create the appearance of an integrated legal practice in India, which is not permissible without prior registration under the amended Rules.
Referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in AK Balaji, the BCI reiterated that foreign law firms cannot indirectly accomplish what they are prohibited from doing directly. It emphasized that any unified branding, joint platforms, or co-branded services offered without registration would violate the regulatory framework.
The Council also announced that it is issuing notices to such firms, requiring them to explain their structure and governance. Non-compliance could lead to proceedings for professional misconduct and penalties, the BCI warned.
This warning comes in the wake of recent partnerships between Indian and international law firms. Shortly after the BCI amended its Rules in May 2025, CMS disclosed its collaboration with IndusLaw, with IndusLaw co-founder Gaurav Dani confirming to Bar & Bench that the arrangement meant “all CMS work will go to IndusLaw.” This followed the earlier announcement of the Dentons-Link Legal partnership in 2023.
CMS IndusLaw and Dentons Link Legal both rejected the BCI notice alleging improper collaborations with foreign firms. CMS IndusLaw expressed being “dismayed and surprised,” insisting it is an independent Indian firm fully compliant with regulations, and stated that the BCI’s position is based on “misconception and surmises.”
Leaders of Dentons Link Legal, including Atul Sharma, Nusrat Hassan, and Anand Srivastava, asserted that their firm is entirely Indian-owned, managed by advocates, and compliant with the Advocates Act.
Case Title: Atul Sharma v. Bar Council of India