Undermines Autonomy & Independence Of Bar: BCI Raises Objections To Draft Advocates Amendment Bill 2025

The Bar Council of India has made a representation to the Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal concerning the proposed Draft Advocates Amendment Bill 2025, raising concerns that the draft bill would have serious implications for the legal profession.

The representation states that it is 'shocking' that several material changes are made in the draft bill which would undermine the autonomy and independence of the Bar. The BCI has raised objections to the amendment of several provisions of the Advocates Act 1961 and urged for either deletion or rectification of the draft provisions.

The BCI states, “The BCI and State Bar Councils strongly oppose these amendments and caution that if the autonomy, fairness, and democratic structure of the legal profession are compromised, nation wide protests and legal challenges will follow.”

BCI's letter states that the insertion of the provision where the Central Government can nominate upto 2 members to the BCI is arbitrary. It is stated that government-nominated members would compromise BCI's autonomy and turn it into a government-regulated body rather than a self-regulating professional body. The BCI urges the deletion of this provision.

On the insertion of a provision which empowers the Central Government to issue directions to the BCI, it is said that this “is a direct attack on the autonomy of Bar Councils." It is stated that the provision undermines the self regulatory framework of the legal profession.

On the draft bill's provision on the curtailment of protest, BCI states that this provision infringes on the right to protest, which it calls is “a legitimate means of raising concerns over judicial reforms, professional ethics and legal infrastructure.” It thus asks for its deletion.

On shifting of responsibility of regulating foreign law firms with the Central Government, it is stated that BCI is equipped to regulate foreign law firms and thus seeks rectification where it can frame the rules in consultation with the Central Government. The BCI further opposed the draft bills' conferment of power on the Central Government for the determination of enrollment fees and said that it would lead to arbitrary changes, confusion and difficulties for enrolling advocates.

BCI also raised concerns on change in definitions of 'legal practitioner' and 'practice of law'. BCI states that the new definition of 'legal practitioner' includes firms and entities not registered with the Bar Councils. It stated that the new definition introduces 'vague criteria', which would open 'dangerous loopholes' and thus asks for its deletion.

On the bills' omission of definition of 'practice of law' which earlier included both litigious and non-litigious work, the BCI states that such omission creates ambiguity and invites unregulated practices. It thus asks for reinstatement of the old definition. It is also stated that the definition of 'Non-Practicing Advocate', 'Serious Misconduct' and 'Serious Offence' have been arbitrarily removed.

The BCI further seeks the removal of the phrase 'or causing obstruction in court's functioning' in the provision concerning the state bar council's power to remove names from the roll.