The Union Ministry of Law and Justice withdrew the controversial Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, amid widespread protests from lawyers and the Bar Council of India demanding protection of legal profession independence.
The Union Ministry of Law and Justice has withdrawn the draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, following strong opposition from lawyers and the Bar Council of India (BCI). The bill, which was published for public comments on February 13, faced immediate backlash due to its provisions allowing the Centre to influence the BCI, regulate foreign law firms, and restrict lawyers’ right to protest.
Lawyers across Delhi and other parts of India staged protests and stopped work in opposition to what they called an “unjust, unfair, and biased” bill. Bar associations unanimously condemned the proposed changes, prompting the government to withdraw the bill on February 23. The ministry has now announced that a revised draft will be prepared with further consultations.
The Bar Council of India, established under the Advocates Act, 1961, is responsible for regulating the legal profession. The proposed bill sought to amend Section 4 to allow the Central government to nominate up to three members to the BCI, a move that many lawyers said would threaten the independence of the legal profession.
BCI Chairperson and BJP Rajya Sabha MP Manan Kumar Mishra initially opposed this provision, stating,
“This provision is fundamentally opposed to the structure and independence of the Bar Council, which has always been a democratically elected body representing the 27 lakh advocates of the country.”
However, he later softened his stance after discussions with the government.
Another controversial clause, Section 49B, would have given the Centre the power to issue directives to the BCI, potentially limiting its autonomy. The BCI argued that this “would seriously undermine its independence.”
The entry of foreign law firms in India remains a complex issue. The Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Bar Council of India v. A K Balaji allowed foreign lawyers to provide legal advice on a limited basis but barred them from practicing in Indian courts.
The draft bill proposed shifting the power to regulate foreign law firms from the BCI to the Central government under Section 49A. The BCI strongly objected, arguing that this would take away its authority and lead to unregulated foreign competition.
Additionally, the bill expanded the definition of “legal practitioner” to include lawyers working for foreign law firms and corporations, a move that many Indian lawyers opposed.
One of the most controversial provisions was Section 35A, which banned lawyers from striking, boycotting court work, or obstructing court proceedings.
It stated, “No association of advocates or any member of the association or any advocate, either individually or collectively, shall give a call for boycott or abstinence from courts’ work…”
Senior advocate KC Mittal criticized this clause, saying,
“A right to protest is well established, and bringing it under the definition of misconduct is rather atrocious.”
The bill introduced new grounds for misconduct under Section 45B, allowing clients to file complaints if they suffered a “loss” due to an advocate’s actions.
“If any client suffers loss in his case, he can make a complaint of misconduct against the advocate. How can an advocate be held responsible if he loses the case? This has serious legal implications for all advocates,”
said Advocate Paras Jain.
The bill also proposed fines up to Rs 3 lakhs for advocates found guilty of misconduct and a Rs 50,000 penalty on clients filing frivolous complaints.
With the bill now withdrawn, the government has assured further consultations with stakeholders before introducing any new amendments. Lawyers across the country view this as a major victory for the independence of the legal profession.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE