CMS IndusLaw has filed a plea in the Delhi High Court questioning the Bar Council of India’s Rules that allow foreign law firms to operate in India, calling them unconstitutional and beyond the Advocates Act. The Court has sought clarity from the BCI on approvals from the CJI and Central government.
CMS IndusLaw has moved the Delhi High Court challenging the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules that allow foreign law firms and lawyers to operate in India. The petition has been filed by four partners of the firm — Avimukt Dar, Gaurav Dani, Kartik Ganapathy, and Suneeth Katarki.
The firm has also questioned a show cause notice issued to it by the BCI in August 2025 over an alleged unauthorised collaboration between IndusLaw and the international law firm CMS.
In March 2023, the Bar Council of India had notified the Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022, allowing foreign law firms to enter the Indian legal market. These Rules were later amended in May 2025.
The petitioners have argued that the BCI does not have the power under the Advocates Act, 1961 to make rules about the entry or regulation of foreign lawyers and law firms in India.
According to them, the Rules are unconstitutional and go beyond what the Advocates Act permits. They claim the Rules violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The plea further states that Section 49 of the Advocates Act does not authorise the BCI to make any rules that allow foreign lawyers or law firms to practise law in India.
The petition reads:
“The Impugned BCI Rules go beyond the parent statute (i.e., the Advocates Act) by conferring on Respondent No. 1 powers and functions which are not conferred on it by the Advocates Act. The Impugned BCI Rules travel far beyond the Advocates Act by simply deeming foreign lawyers to be advocates, without requiring them to be enrolled or admitted to the rolls of the State Bar Councils – thus dilute a mandatory requirement under the Advocates Act. The Impugned BCI Rules empower Respondent No. 1 to permit persons other than ‘advocates’ to practice law in India in terms of the Impugned BCI Rules which is in direct contravention of the Advocates Act.”
It also highlights that the gazette notification of the Rules does not mention approval from either the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or the Central Government, which is mandatory under the Advocates Act. The petition therefore argues that the Rules do not have the force of law.
The plea adds:
“The Impugned BCI Rules state that they have been framed by Respondent No. 1 inter alia under section 49(1)(c) and section 49(1)(e) of the Advocates Act. The first proviso to section 49(1) of the Advocates Act provides that no rules made with reference to clause (c) shall have effect unless they have been approved by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. Similarly, the second proviso to section 49(1) provides that no rules made under clause (e) shall have effect unless they have been approved by the Central Government. The gazette notification of the Impugned BCI Rules do not mention that these have been approved by either the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India or by the Central Government. Therefore, in absence of the mandatory approval as envisaged under the Advocates Act, the Impugned BCI Rules do not have the force of law.”
Regarding the BCI’s show cause notice on the alleged “violative” collaboration with foreign firms, the petition says that the notice refers to certain statements supposedly made by the firm. However, the firm has denied making any such statements.
The petition states that CMS IndusLaw responded to the BCI notice, requesting details and clarification about the basis for the proceedings. However, the BCI has not shared any information in response.
Further, it mentions that earlier this month, the BCI issued another notice to the firm and its partners, asking them to appear personally before the Bar Council on November 16.
The case was heard by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on Thursday.
After hearing the matter, the Court questioned certain provisions of the BCI Rules, particularly those that impose “drastic penalties” like suspension of registration of foreign law firms based merely on a preliminary inquiry.
The Court directed the BCI to defer its proceedings against CMS IndusLaw that were scheduled for November 16. At the same time, the Court instructed the petitioners to provide the documents requested by the BCI in its August notice.
The Bench also granted time to the BCI’s counsel to seek necessary instructions and asked them to confirm whether the Rules had indeed been framed with the approval of the Chief Justice of India and the Central Government.
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal and Advocate Saket Sikri appeared for CMS IndusLaw, assisted by Advocates Raghavv Sabharwal, Harsh Vardhan Singh, Ajay Pal Singh Khullar, and Ayush Srivastava.
Notably, another firm, Dentons Link Legal, had also approached the Delhi High Court earlier challenging the same Rules and the BCI’s August 2025 notice. In that case, the BCI had informed the Court that it would withdraw the press release naming Dentons Link Legal and CMS IndusLaw.
ALSO READ: BREAKING: Foreign Law Firms Can Now Operate in India Under New BCI Rules!
Shortly after the amended Rules were announced in May 2025, the international law firm CMS declared that IndusLaw had joined as one of its member firms.
“This is an exclusive arrangement between CMS and IndusLaw and all CMS work will go to IndusLaw,”
IndusLaw co-founder Gaurav Dani had told Bar & Bench in an interview.
This was the second such collaboration between an Indian law firm and an international firm — the first being Dentons Link Legal, announced in May 2023.
Read More Reports On Foreign Law
