British National Jane Cox To Continue Law Practice In India After BCI Consents Before Bombay High Court, 17-Yr-Old Order Set Aside

A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale, set aside the 2005 order with BCI's consent but kept the question regarding a foreigner's right to practice expressly open.

"Both sides agree that reasons are not necessary for the following order. The Bar Council of India though Mr Shekhar Jagtap states that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the impugned order of the BCI dated February 20, 2005 may be set aside, and the issue of the petitioner's right to practice be concluded in the petitioner's favour. We make rules absolute regarding prayer A and B.

The question of law raised in the petition is expressly kept open with regard to persons other than the present petitioner," the court said.

Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond appeared for Cox. According to her petition Jane Cox is a British citizen who cleared her BA in Jurisprudence from Wadham College, Oxford in 1987. She came to India the same year and was granted sanad by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa in 1990.

Since then she has been practicing in the High Court, Labour Courts and Industrial Courts. She is the wife of Senior Advocate Sanjay Singhvi.

On February 20, 2005 the Bar Council of India set aside an order passed by the State Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa dismissing a complaint against Cox. The complaint was alleged to be filed by a disgruntled proprietor, who illegally dismissed his employees from service and lost miserably. Cox was representing the employees.

Following several unsuccessful complaints to the Ministry, he wrote to the Bar Council in 2002 alleging Cox’s enrolment was by misrepresentation. He produced emails from the Law Society of UK stating that Indian advocates are permitted to practice in the UK, but there is “no reciprocal agreement with the UK Bar Council” allowing foreign advocates to practice in India.

A special committee was then formed by the State Bar Council to look into cases of foreigner’s enrolment and cancellation. In 2003 the special committee held that according to section 24 (1)(a) of the Advocate’s Act “national of any other country may be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, if citizens of India, duly qualified, are permitted to practise law in that other country.” It refused to go into matters of issuance of visa, residence permit and foreign exchange control laws, and cited lack of jurisdiction.

On an appeal by the complainant in 2004, the BCI remanded the matter back to the State Bar council saying that “the larger issue of reciprocity had to be gone into.”

The BCI order said that the State Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa had to satisfy itself as to whether the requirement of reciprocity was complied with or not and also incidentally look into the question as to whether Cox had obtained the right to stay in India as per Indian Laws to be entitled to practice “because unless that is satisfied the enrolment becomes a mere right to practice which would only mean an entitlement to practice without resulting in really allowing her to remain in India to practice.”

The order, noting that Cox’s enrolment was from 15 years back at that time, said that the issue of reciprocity assumes importance and goes to the root of the matter and directed the State Bar Council to go into the question of reciprocity and in the absence of it to decide whether the Cox’s enrolment was in order, irrespective of the pleas made by her and the complainant.

In 2005 a division bench of then Chief Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice DY Chandrachud (then judge at the Bombay High Court) granted Cox interim relief and stayed the BCI’s order till further orders.

During arguments in the matter last week, Justice Gautam Patel expressed concern regarding litigants filing complaints against the opposite party's counsel. The court was also informed that the complainant was no more.

"Somewhere we heard an Advocate on Record got clinical depression and could not practice for 6-8 months. One of our lawyers who have a standing at the bar got a complaint against him. Why should his lawyer be traumatized like this?"

He said it had become a trend for litigants to file complaints against the opponent’s lawyer. "Both should first address on the bonafides of the complainant. The trend now is that litigant files complaint against opponent lawyers. You do it against your own, I understand. But opponent?! They say the opponent's lawyer said something I don't like. Is it his job to look after your (complainant's) case?" the court questioned.

Justice Patel added that there was little the State Bar Council could do and the matter would keep getting adjourned since “the complainant has gone to his maker.”

“Even if the State Bar hears the complaint every day, it will be adjourned. They will adjourn it saying 'call the complainant' who will not be there. So what remains to be argued? It is pending since long. Even Bar Council cannot serve notice to a dead person. I mean, there is only one way to do it!"

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 125