Kiran Raj

The legal profession in India is witnessing a surge of discontent as the Bar Council of India (BCI) vociferously opposes the proposed Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025. The bill, aimed at reforming the Advocates Act, 1961, has drawn intense criticism from the BCI, which asserts that several provisions infringe upon the autonomy of legal institutions and threaten the independence of the bar.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has submitted a detailed representation to the Union Minister of Law and Justice, Arjun Ram Meghwal, expressing strong opposition to several provisions in the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025. The BCI contends that the proposed amendments undermine the autonomy of the legal profession, introduce excessive government interference, and remove key welfare protections for advocates.

In a formal communication dated February 19, 2025, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra outlined the Council’s concerns, stating that if the bill is enacted in its current form, it could lead to widespread protests by the legal fraternity. The BCI has urged the government to reconsider its proposals and restore provisions that align with the original intent of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Key Objections Highlighted by the Bar Council of India

1. Government Nominees in the Bar Council of India

The proposed bill introduces Section 4(1)(d), which allows the Central Government to nominate up to three members to the Bar Council of India. The BCI has opposed this provision, arguing that the Bar Council has historically functioned as a democratically elected body representing 27 lakh advocates.

The Council states that this proposal was never discussed in previous consultations and was inserted unilaterally into the draft. The BCI contends that government appointees could alter the independent character of the legal profession and has requested the complete deletion of this provision.

2. Transfer of Foreign Lawyer Regulation to Central Government

The A.K. Balaji judgment had ruled that the regulation of foreign lawyers and law firms falls under the Bar Council of India’s jurisdiction. The BCI asserts that its 2022 regulations already establish a framework for foreign legal entities, requiring BCI oversight with Central Government approval.

The bill proposes transferring this regulatory authority entirely to the Central Government. The BCI has opposed this change, arguing that such a move could lead to uncertainty regarding compliance and regulatory enforcement.

3. Government Authority to Issue Directions to the BCI

The proposed Section 49B grants the Central Government the power to issue binding directions to the BCI. The Bar Council has opposed this provision, stating that it contradicts the self-regulatory nature of the legal profession under the Advocates Act, 1961.

The BCI argues that such a provision is unprecedented and could allow government intervention in Bar Council decisions, affecting disciplinary proceedings, enrollment policies, and legal education governance. It has demanded the deletion of this section.

4. Amendments to Enrollment Eligibility and Fees

The bill modifies Section 24 by removing the fixed enrollment fee structure and transferring the power to determine fees to the Central Government. Previously, advocates paid Rs. 18,000 to the State Bar Council and Rs. 3,000 to the BCI, with provisions for periodic revision.

The BCI contends that the removal of a fixed fee structure could lead to arbitrary fee changes, creating uncertainty for new law graduates seeking enrollment. The Council has requested that the original enrollment fee provisions be restored.

5. Definition of "Legal Practitioner"

The BCI had proposed a definition for “Legal Practitioner” under Section 2(i) to ensure that all legal professionals, including those engaged in corporate advisory roles or tribunals, fall within the purview of the Advocates Act.

However, the government’s draft alters this definition, which the BCI argues could lead to unregulated legal practice by non-lawyers. The Council has requested the reinstatement of its originally proposed definition.

6. Automatic Disqualification of Advocates Facing Conviction

Under Section 24B, the bill mandates the automatic removal of an advocate’s name from the State Roll if convicted of an offense with a sentence of three years or more.

The BCI has opposed this provision, arguing that the threshold should be raised to seven years. It also objects to a provision prohibiting advocates facing trial from contesting Bar Council elections, stating that this could violate the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”.

7. Criminalization of Strikes and Boycotts

The bill criminalizes strikes and boycotts by advocates, classifying them as misconduct under Section 26(c) and (d).

The BCI has opposed this amendment, stating that advocates have historically used strikes to protest judicial inefficiencies and legal system challenges. The Council argues that existing laws, such as the Contempt of Courts Act, already address disruptions to court proceedings.

8. Removal of Welfare Provisions for Advocates

The BCI states that the bill omits key welfare provisions related to advocate protection laws, pension schemes, and healthcare benefits. The BCI had proposed a new chapter on "Advocates' Protection and Rights", which is not included in the final draft.

The Bar Council argues that lawyers face increasing security threats, and removing these protections could negatively impact the profession.

The BCI has stated that lawyers across India have expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed amendments. According to the Council, lawyers from Delhi’s District Courts have already gone on strike, and similar protests may spread nationwide.

The BCI has formally requested a meeting with the Union Minister of Law and Justice to discuss these concerns. In its representation, the Council stated that if the bill is not revised, the legal fraternity may take stronger action.

The Ministry of Law and Justice has not yet issued a formal statement on the objections raised by the BCI.