'Undermines Autonomy & Independence Of Bar' : Bar Council Of India Objects To Draft Advocates Amendment Bill

The Bar Council of India (BCI) today filed objections to the Draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025 ('the Bill'), which was made public on February 13 for inviting comments. 

The BCI has expressed "profound concerns" regarding the Bill and identified several provisions, which if enacted, will have "serious implications for the legal profession and [would] undermine the autonomy and integrity of BCI".

It has also been claimed by the BCI that two rounds of discussion were held between the BCI, the Law Secretary, and Chief Controller of Accounts. An apparent consensus was reached over key issues in these meetings but despite that, as stated by BCI, the same has been "unilaterally inserted".

It is said: "It is shocking that in draft Publication, several material changes have been made by some Officials and Ministry of Law. The very concept of autonomy and independence of the Bar is attempted to be demolished by this draft. The lawyers throughout the country are agitated, strong protest is bound to occur. If such deliberate and draconian provisions are not omitted/amended immediately. The Lawyers of Delhi District Courts have already gone on strike and this protest is likely to spread throughout the country if no positive assurance from Ministry is made soon."

Key objections

1.Insertion of Section 4(1)(d) - Government Nominees in BCI

The draft bill introduces Section 4(1)(d), providing for the Central Government to nominate up to three members to the BCI. 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. The Lawyers have taken this to be a draconian provision.

This proposal was never discussed in any of the meetings and appears to be an arbitrary insertion. Allowing government nominated members would compromise the autonomy of the Bar Council, turning it into a government-regulated body rather than a self-regulating professional body. We strongly urge the Hon'ble Minister to delete this provision in its entirety. This has agitated the lawyers throughout the country and may invited nationwide protest.

2. Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Law Firms

The A.K. Balaji judgment clearly placed the responsibility of regulating foreign law firms and lawyers on the BCI. The Bar Council's 2022 Regulations already provide a comprehensive framework for their entry, with ample safeguards and the requirement of Central Government approval.

The Ministry's draft, however, proposes to shift this regulatory authority to the Central Government. Such a move contradicts the judgment and creates unnecessary confusion. The Bar Council is equipped to regulate foreign entities in legal practice while ensuring the interests of Indian lawyers are protected. This provision must be rectified.

The Legal profession as a whole is to be regulated and governed by Bar Council of India, then why and how the Foreign Lawyers and Law Firms could be governed by Central Government. The Bar Council of India shall frame the rules in consultation with the Central Government governing the entry of foreign law firms and foreign lawyers in India.

3. Section 49B - Power of Central Government to Issue Directions

The proposed Section 49B empowers the Central Government to issue binding directions to the BCI. This provision is wholly unacceptable as it directly undermines the autonomy and independence of the Bar Council, which was designed as a self regulating body. Such a provision is not only against the spirit of the Advocates Act but also unconstitutional. We demand for its complete deletion.

The lawyers have treated it to be most draconian and are ready to come on roads, if this provision is not omitted.

4. Section 24 - Deviations in Enrollment Eligibility and Fee Structure

The proposed amendments to Section 24 of the Advocates Act introduce several problematic changes concerning the eligibility for enrollment as an advocate and the enrollment fee structure.

The Bar Council had proposed a fixed enrollment fee of Rs. 18,000/- to the State Bar Council and Rs. 3,000/- to the Bar Council of India, with provisions for periodic revision based on inflation, in consultation with the Bar Council. However, the Ministry's draft leaves the determination of the enrollment fee entirely to the Central Government, to be notified from time to time. This provision undermines the autonomy of the Bar Council and creates potential for arbitrary changes, leading to confusion and difficulties for newly enrolling advocates.

The Bar Council strongly opposes this and urges the restoration of the fixed fee structure as agreed during the deliberations. The original Act provided clear criteria for who may be admitted as an advocate on the State roll.

The Bar Council had proposed a clause allowing Indian citizens with foreign law degrees to enroll, subject to passing a pre-enrollment examination and compliance with prescribed conditions. However, this provision has been either omitted or altered in the draft, leaving the eligibility criteria incomplete and inconsistent.

The Bar Council had proposed a clear framework for admitting foreign nationals, who have procured foreign or LL.B degrees in India as advocates on the State roll, provided that Indian nationals are allowed reciprocal rights in their home country and subject to discretion of BCI and subjecting then to such conditions and restrictions including limiting them to non-litigious practice in order to protect rights ,interests and privileges of Indian Advocates. The Ministry's draft weakens this framework and introduces ambiguities that may lead to regulatory challenges.

The Bar Council urges the Hon'ble Minister to restore the provisions as originally proposed to maintain consistency and clarity in enrollment standards or amend it to disallow non-citizens to enroll with State Bar Councils.

6 Definition of "Legal Practitioner" - An Arbitrary Change

The Bar Council of India had proposed a clear and comprehensive definition of "Legal Practitioner" under Section 2(i) to ensure that individuals and entities practicing law in any firm, whether in courts, tribunals, or legal advisory roles in corporate entities or government bodies fall within the regulatory ambit of the Advocates Act.

This was aligned with the A.K. Balaji judgment, which affirmed that the Act applies not only to individuals, group of individuals, companies, firms, juridical persons, LLPs, and foreign law firms engaged in the practice of law in substance. Those firms or entities not registered with Bar Councils, cannot be treated as "Legal Practitioners"

However, the Ministry's draft significantly diluted the proposed definition and introduced vague criteria that would open dangerous loopholes. Therefore, BCI requests to omit this definition of "Legal Practitioner.

7. Deletion of "Practice of Law" Definition

The BCI  proposed to define "Practice of Law" comprehensively under Section 2(iv) to include both litigious and non- litigious legal work. This definition encompassed advisory, consultancy, and legal drafting provided by juridical persons, LLPs, LPOs, and BPOs if their activities, in substance, constitute the practice of law. This proposal was essential to ensure that all legal practice are regulated appropriately under the Advocates Act.

The Ministry's decision to omit this definition is contrary to the intent of the Act and the guidance provided by the A.K. Balaji judgment. This omission creates ambiguity and invites unregulated practices, especially by foreign legal entities. We request that this definition be reinstated to safeguard the regulatory framework of the legal profession.

7. Addition of a new Section 24B

The draft bill reads as "24B .- Removal of the name from State Roll. - The name of an advocate shall be removed from the State roll, if he is convicted of an offence and sentenced for a period of three years or above, with or without fine, and the conviction has been confirmed by the High Court or the Supreme Court :...... "

In the same above-mentioned time of "3 years or above" maybe amended to "7 years or above".

Further, the proviso provides that "provided if the period of sentence is less than 5 years, the advocate may after two years have elapsed since his release make an application to the State Bar Council for re- enrolment and the State Bar Council shall consider such application in consultation with Bar Council of India in accordance with section 26 and the rules made in this regard."

In the proviso the words "5 years" may be replaced with "7 years" and the word "two years" maybe replaced by "3 years".

8. Section 26(c) and (d) to be omitted

Strikes/boycotts cannot be treated as separately as proposed in the Draft Amendment Act.

Moreover, for creating hinderance in court works, the courts have been empowered to take action over the Contempt of Courts Act, therefore, this cannot be treated to be a misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. Therefore, this provision has to be omitted.

9. Amendment to Section 48B (2) "Power to give directions"

Under the existing original Act. Bar Council of India under Section 48B (2) is empowered to supervise and give general instructions to State Bar Council/s as it may appear necessary.

The Ministry in the proposed draft under Section 48B (2) has proposed to constitute a committee comprising "headed by Former Judge of a High Court and consisting of four senior Advocates having minimum twenty years of practice and registered with Bar Association" be constituted by the Bar Council of India, if the State Bar Council is unable to perform its functions for any reason.

In view of the opinion given by various State Bar Councils, it is decided that amended Section-48B (2) is to be omitted in toto. The original 48B (1) and (2) both are to be retained intact.

10. Addition of a new Section 36B (3)

The ministry in the draft has proposed addition of a new section/subsection 36B (3) which provides that if it is evident that the State Bar Council or the disciplinary Committee has failed to conduct effective hearings, negligence or shown lack of diligence in hearing and disposing of complaints within the stipulated period of two years as prescribed, upon such failure, the same may be treated as misconduct.

The sub-section should be suitably amended as the Disciplinary Committee is discharging a quasi-judicial court/function. Any timeline and consequence of any punishment cannot be put over individuals discharging quasi-judicial functions.

11.Replacement of "Rules" with "Regulations"

Throughout the draft bill, the term "Rules" has been replaced with "Regulations," thereby diminishing the authority of the Bar Council to frame binding rules. These changes were strongly objected to during discussions, and it was agreed that the term "Rules" would be retained. Regulations are subordinate to Rules and would reduce the Bar Council's power to enforce its decisions effectively.

We strongly recommend that "Rules" be reinstated wherever "Regulations" have been inserted. 

12. Omission of Advocates Protection and Welfare Provisions

In course of discussions, the BCI proposed a new chapter on Advocates Protection and Rights to safeguard advocates from violence, harassment, and malicious prosecution. Given the increasing incidents of violence against advocates, this chapter is indispensable.

Similarly, provisions related to welfare schemes for advocates, agreed between the BCI and the Ministry, have also been inexplicably omitted. These protections and welfare measures must be reinstated to ensure the safety, dignity, and well-being of advocates across the country.

13. Removal of Important Definitions and Sections

Several critical provisions proposed by the Bar Council, such as the definitions of "Non-Practicing Advocate," "Serious Misconduct," "Serious Offence," and the proposed sub-sections on welfare funds and transfer of funds between State Bar Councils, have been arbitrarily removed. Each of these provisions was carefully designed to address long-standing issues in the legal profession and must be reintroduced.

14. It is to be noted that the BCI has no intention to regulate the Bar Associations.

15. The Ministry in the proposed amendment has added a new Section 3(5)(b) which reads as:

"State Bar Councils -

(5) An electoral roll of eligible Advocates shall be prepared and revised from time to time by each State Bar Council as per regulations prescribed by Bar Council of India.".

(b) nothing in clause (b) of sub- section (2) shall affect the representation of elected members in any State Bar Council as constituted immediately before the commencement of this Act, until that State Bar Council is reconstituted in accordance with the provision of this Act.

Provided that no Advocate/Legal Practitioner shall be entitled to be a member of any State Bar Council or Bar Council of India who is a convict or is facing trial in an offence of having minimum punishment prescribed is three years , with or without fine under any law for the time being in force or against whom a disciplinary proceeding is pending for a case of misconduct in any State Bar Council or in Bar Council of India or who has been punished for such misconduct.

Provided further that the Bar Council of India may permit any such Advocate/Legal Practitioner, to contest the election of State Bar Council or Bar Council of India, if it finds that the Advocate prima-facie appears to have been falsely implicated and/or no substantive case of misconduct is made out against such advocate."

The BCI suggests that both the above-mentioned provisos should be omitted from the Act, it appears totally arbitrary provision which can be misused by anyone at any time.