The Union government on February 22, 2025, withdrew the contentious Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, announcing that a revised version would be introduced after incorporating public feedback. The Bill aimed to amend the Advocates Act, 1961 (1961 Act) which has regulated the legal profession for over six decades.
However, its introduction was met with strong opposition from certain sections of the bar, which condemned its provisions and staged strikes and court boycotts. The government’s decision to retract the Bill followed a letter from the Bar Council of India (BCI) to Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, underscoring that the proposed amendments threatened the “autonomy and independence of the bar.”
Objective of the Bill
The Ministry stated that amendments to the 1961 Act are necessary to address “contemporary challenges and meet the needs of a growing nation”. It asserted that seismic shifts in the legal landscape call for reforms to align the profession and legal education with global best practices. These changes, it added, would better prepare lawyers to navigate a rapidly evolving world.
The draft Bill comes a little over a year after the introduction of the Advocates Bill, 2023, which was passed to eliminate “touts” and curb “superfluous enactments” in existing statutes.
Ban on boycotts and strikes
A key point of contention in the Bill is its proposed prohibition on strikes and boycotts by lawyers, justified on the grounds that such actions disrupt judicial proceedings. It introduces Section 35-A, which explicitly bars advocates and bar associations from abstaining from court work.
A violation of this provision will constitute “misconduct”, making the offender liable for disciplinary action under the 1961 Act and the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975. However, the Bill clarifies that this restriction does not extend to strikes that do not “impede the administration of justice” and are aimed at raising “legitimate concerns about professional conduct,” such as working conditions or administrative issues. It further permits symbolic or one-day token strikes, provided they do not disrupt court proceedings or infringe upon clients’ rights.
With the judiciary burdened by a staggering backlog of over 40 million pending cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly discouraged lawyers from resorting to boycotts. In Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2022), the Court unequivocally ruled that lawyers do not have the right to strike or call for boycotts. It held that any form of protest must be limited to press statements, television interviews, or peaceful processions outside court premises. However, the judgment carved out a narrow exception, permitting strikes only in the rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity, or independence of the Bar or the Bench are at stake — and even then, only for a single day.
According to senior advocate Chander Lall, strikes serve as a legitimate means for lawyers to voice grievances and demonstrate solidarity. “The Bill’s withdrawal was a direct consequence of protests led by various bar associations. However, court boycotts and strikes inevitably disrupt judicial proceedings, ultimately harming litigants. That said, I believe the bar exercises restraint and resorts to strikes only in cases of extreme exigency,” he told The Hindu.
Echoing similar sentiments, advocate Nipun Saxena pointed out that strikes have historically served as a powerful tool for the legal fraternity to oppose state excesses. “Barrister Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew was among the earliest vocal opponents of the Rowlatt Act, 1919, which granted the British government sweeping powers to arrest and detain individuals without trial in colonial India. He organised widespread boycotts of British courts by Indian lawyers. In fact, the Bombay High Court initiated disciplinary proceedings against several lawyers who had signed the ‘Satyagraha Pledge’ authored by Mahatma Gandhi. Lawyers have long stood as the first line of defence in safeguarding the rule of law and preserving constitutional values,” he said.
Executive interference
The proposed law empowers the Centre to nominate up to three members to the BCI, in addition to its existing members — the Attorney General of India, the Solicitor General, and one representative elected by each State Bar Council. The BCI has strongly opposed this provision, calling it “draconian” and alleging that it was “arbitrarily inserted.”
Additionally, the Bill introduces Section 49B, granting the Centre the authority to issue binding directions to the BCI for implementing provisions of the 1961 Act and its associated rules. It also allows the Union government to set eligibility criteria for bar council membership and regulate the BCI’s oversight of state bar councils.
“Since the government is the largest litigant in our courts, it should have no role in the functioning of an autonomous regulatory body like the BCI. Such executive influence would undermine the judiciary’s independence, as advocates serve as officers of the court,” Mr. Lal told The Hindu.
Making state bar councils redundant
The amendments significantly expand the BCI’s authority, potentially rendering state bar councils redundant. Traditionally, complaints of misconduct against advocates are adjudicated by the disciplinary committees of state bar councils. However, Section 45B now empowers the BCI to entertain complaints against any advocate nationwide and grants it the discretion to suspend them immediately if deemed necessary.
Furthermore, Section 48B authorises the BCI to dissolve a State bar council and replace it with a committee if it believes the council is unable to discharge its functions effectively. This committee would be headed by a former High Court judge and comprise four senior advocates with a minimum of twenty years of practice.
Mr. Saxena opined that these regulatory changes undermine the federal structure envisioned in the 1961 Act. “The BCI and state bar councils were established under distinct provisions of the Act. Stripping state bar councils of their essential functions would erode their autonomy, reducing them to mere administrative bodies with no substantive authority,” he said.
Entry of foreign law firms and recognition of corporate lawyers
The Bill expands the definition of “legal practitioner” under Section 2(i) to include lawyers associated with foreign law firms and corporate entities, in addition to practising advocates. It grants statutory recognition to corporate lawyers working in law firms and as in-house counsels — a long-standing demand that has gained momentum in recent years. The definition also encompasses law graduates who have not yet enrolled as advocates, acknowledging their role in various legal capacities.
Additionally, the Bill empowers the Union government to formulate rules governing the entry of foreign law firms and lawyers into India. This has faced strong opposition from the BCI, which had previously spearheaded efforts to regulate their entry. The Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022, notified on March 10, 2023, allow foreign lawyers and law firms to practice foreign law in India on a reciprocal basis. However, the rules were subsequently challenged before the Delhi High Court on the ground that the BCI lacked the statutory mandate to permit such practice.
“This proposed change would have had little impact on corporate lawyers in law firms, as most are already licensed advocates. However, its implications are far more significant for in-house counsels. A crucial question is whether this move intends to gradually blur the distinction between ‘advocates’ and ‘legal practitioners’. For instance, would in-house counsels be granted rights of audience before courts, arbitral tribunals, and other judicial fora? Moreover, it could have definitively settled the long-standing debate on whether legal privilege extends to advice provided by in-house counsels to their employers”, Mrinal Ojha, partner at Solaris Legal told The Hindu.
He further pointed out that while the structured entry of foreign law firms into India is a welcome development, the proposed framework remains ambiguous. “Jurisdictions like Singapore serve as valuable precedents, having successfully balanced the interests of international law firms and the domestic legal fraternity. However, for any regulations introduced by the Centre to be effective, they must be formulated in consultation with all key stakeholders—the BCI, bar associations, and the legal community at large,” Mr. Ojha added.
The way forward
“The withdrawal of the Bill is a positive development, and one hopes that meaningful and inclusive dialogue will yield the desired outcome. Any proposed reforms must uphold the independence of the judiciary and preserve the autonomy of regulatory bodies,” Mr. Lal stated.
Mr. Saxena further underscored the need to consult High Courts before implementing any reforms, noting that Section 34 of the 1961 Act empowers them to regulate the practice of advocates before them and subordinate courts.
Published – February 28, 2025 09:39 pm IST