The Delhi High Court criticised the Bar Council of India’s rules allowing suspension of foreign law firms based only on a preliminary inquiry, calling them “drastic” and unfair. The Court warned that the BCI must amend the rules or the bench will read them down.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday raised serious questions about the newly amended Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules that allow “drastic penalties” like suspending the registration of foreign law firms only based on a preliminary inquiry.
The Court was hearing a plea filed by CMS IndusLaw and four lawyers from the firm against the BCI’s disciplinary actions.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela expressed strong concern over these rules and observed that the BCI may need to make changes to them.
ALSO READ: Foreign Law Firm Alliances Under Scrutiny: BCI Issues Notice
The Bench said,
“Kisne banaya ye Rule? (Who made this Rule)… What kind of Rules are they? We expect you to do something about it. Prima facie, you are imposing a major penalty. Either they [BCI] need to change it or we will read it down.”
The Court mainly questioned Rule 10 of the Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022. This rule deals with disciplinary action against foreign lawyers or law firms for professional misconduct or for violating the BCI Rules.
The judges noted that the rule only provides for a preliminary inquiry but not for a detailed or full investigation, which is normally required before imposing a major penalty.
The Bench remarked,
“Prima facie, it is beyond comprehension that in case the purpose of conducting the preliminary inquiry is to assess the merits of the allegations alone, then without any further inquiry, how a penalty like suspension of registration can be imposed. In case the Rules envisage only one inquiry which is termed as preliminary inquiry in that eventuality, the foreign lawyer of a foreign firm needs to be given an opportunity of hearing and producing evidence and responding to the allegations. Such opportunity would necessarily include providing documents based on which the inquiry has been initiated.”
The Court made these observations while hearing the plea by CMS IndusLaw and four lawyers, who sought directions to the BCI to share the details and documents on the basis of which a notice was issued to their firm.
The BCI had earlier sent show-cause notices to CMS IndusLaw and Dentons Link Legal in August 2025, accusing them of forming unauthorised collaborations or combinations between Indian and foreign law firms, allegedly violating the BCI’s Rules.
The firms were asked to reply to the notice and submit relevant documents.
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, representing CMS IndusLaw, argued that the BCI’s notice mentioned some statements allegedly made by the firm, but no such statements were ever made by any of its office bearers.
He said that his clients had responded to the BCI’s notice and also requested details about the basis of the proceedings, but the BCI had not provided any information so far.
Sibal also told the Court that earlier this month, the BCI issued another notice to his clients, calling for their personal appearance before the Bar Council on November 16.
He further raised an important concern that the Rules regulating foreign law firms might not have received the mandatory approval from the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Central Government, as required by law.
The Delhi High Court agreed that the principles of natural justice demand that if the ongoing proceedings are the only inquiry, then the law firm must be given all the materials and documents on which the BCI has based its action. The Bench said that without this information, the firm would not be able to properly defend itself.
After hearing the arguments, the Court granted the BCI’s counsel additional time to take instructions and also directed the counsel to inform whether the Rules were indeed approved by the Chief Justice of India and the Central Government.
ALSO READ: BREAKING: Foreign Law Firms Can Now Operate in India Under New BCI Rules!
Until then, the Court directed the Bar Council of India to defer its proceedings against CMS IndusLaw, which were originally scheduled for November 16.
At the same time, the Court asked the petitioners (CMS IndusLaw and its lawyers) to share the documents requested by the BCI in its August notice.
The matter will now be taken up for hearing next week.
Advocates Saket Sikri, Raghavv Sabharwal, Harsh Vardhan Singh, Ajay Pal Singh Khullar, and Ayush Srivastava also appeared for the petitioners in the case.
Case Title:
Avimukt Dar and Ors v. Bar Council of India and Anr
Read More Reports On Foreign Law Firms
