The Bar Council of India told the Delhi High Court that its 2022 Rules permitting foreign lawyers do not require approval from the Chief Justice of India or the Central government, prompting sharp judicial scrutiny.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Bar Council of India (BCI) informed the Delhi High Court that its Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022, were validly framed without requiring approval from the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or the Central government.
Appearing before the Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, BCI’s counsel stated:
“We don’t need the approval… Allow me to file a counter and I will justify.”
The submission was made in response to arguments from Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam, who said that the BCI had not shown any proof of obtaining such approvals.
The Bench reiterated its earlier concerns about the structure and fairness of the Rules. The judges sharply criticised provisions that allow major penalties against law firms based only on a preliminary inquiry.
Turning to the BCI’s counsel, the Court remarked:
“It’s a mess. Why don’t you [BCI] carry out an amendment?”
The Bench also reminded the Bar Council of its national responsibility, saying:
“Please frame the rules properly, instead of explaining all this. You are Bar Council after all.”
In response to the Court’s critique, the BCI explained that a consultation and feedback process was underway and that suggestions were being considered.
The Court granted the Bar Council two weeks to submit its detailed affidavit. Until then, the earlier order preventing the BCI from taking any final decisions based on its ongoing proceedings will continue.
The Bench reiterated:
“Don’t take the final decision.”
ALSO READ: Foreign Law Firm Alliances Under Scrutiny: BCI Issues Notice
The matter arose from show-cause notices issued in August to Dentons Link Legal and IndusLaw over alleged unauthorised collaborations with foreign law firms.
Their petitions raise several constitutional and statutory challenges:
1. BCI Lacks Authority Under the Advocates Act
IndusLaw’s plea states that Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961, does not empower the BCI to regulate foreign lawyers, arguing that such an expansion of jurisdiction is unlawful.
2. Rules Issued Without Mandatory Approval
Dentons Link Legal emphasised that Section 49(1)(c) and (e) require either CJI or Central government approval before enforcing such rules. It argued that, without these approvals, the regulations are ultra vires.
3. Missing Definition of “Indian Law Firm”
A key criticism is that the Rules regulate foreign law firms extensively but make no attempt to define what constitutes an “Indian law firm.”
Read More Reports On Foreign Law Firms
