Bar Council of India opposes Draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill

New Delhi: The Bar Council of India (BCI) has raised strong objections to the Draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which was made public on February 13 for comments. In its official statement on Wednesday, the BCI expressed “profound concerns” regarding several provisions in the Bill, warning that its enactment could have “serious implications for the legal profession” and undermine the autonomy of the BCI.

The BCI claimed that two rounds of discussions were held between the BCI, the Law Secretary, and the Chief Controller of Accounts, where key issues were deliberated. However, the BCI alleged that despite an apparent consensus, certain provisions were “unilaterally inserted” into the draft Bill without consultation.

The BCI’s statement read, “It is shocking that in the draft publication, several material changes have been made by some officials and the Ministry of Law. The very concept of autonomy and independence of the Bar is attempted to be demolished by this draft. Lawyers across the country are agitated, and strong protests are bound to occur if these deliberate and draconian provisions are not amended or removed immediately.”

The BCI further warned that lawyers in Delhi District Courts have already gone on strike, and the protest is likely to spread nationwide unless the Ministry provides a positive assurance soon.

One of the most contentious provisions in the draft Bill is Section 4(1)(d), which allows the Central government to nominate up to three members to the BCI. The BCI contends that this provision fundamentally alters the structure of the Bar Council, traditionally a democratically elected body representing 27 lakh advocates in the country.

“This proposal was never discussed in any of the meetings and appears to be an arbitrary insertion. Government-nominated members would compromise the autonomy of the Bar Council, effectively turning it into a government-regulated body. We strongly urge the Hon’ble Minister to delete this provision in its entirety,” the BCI stated.

The BCI also objected to the Bill’s attempt to shift the regulatory authority over foreign law firms and lawyers from the BCI to the Central government. Citing the A K Balaji judgment, the BCI argued that it has already established a regulatory framework for foreign law firms under its 2022 regulations.

“The legal profession in India is governed by the Bar Council of India. There is no justification for allowing the Central government to take over the regulation of foreign law firms. The BCI must retain this authority to safeguard the interests of Indian lawyers,” the statement read.

The BCI strongly opposed Section 49B, which empowers the Central Government to issue binding directions to the BCI, calling it unconstitutional. “Such a provision directly undermines the autonomy of the Bar Council, which was designed as a self-regulating body. This must be deleted,” the BCI insisted.

The BCI also took issue with proposed amendments to Section 24, which affect eligibility criteria and enrollment fees for advocates. The draft Bill proposes allowing the Central government to determine the enrollment fee structure, deviating from the fixed fee structure recommended by the BCI (Rs. 18,000 to State Bar Councils and Rs. 3,000 to the BCI).

Additionally, the BCI raised concerns over modifications related to Indian citizens with foreign law degrees. While the Council had recommended pre-enrollment examinations and compliance conditions for such individuals, the draft Bill either omits or alters these provisions, making the eligibility criteria unclear.

The BCI also criticised the Ministry’s changes to the definition of “Legal Practitioner” under Section 2(i) and “Practice of Law” under Section 2(iv). The original definitions aimed to include individuals, LLPs, and foreign law firms engaged in legal practice under the regulatory ambit of the Advocates Act. However, the Ministry’s draft weakens these definitions, creating loopholes for unregulated legal practices.

“The omission of these definitions is contrary to the intent of the Act and the A.K. Balaji judgement. This creates ambiguity and invites unregulated practices, especially by foreign legal entities. We demand that these definitions be reinstated,” the BCI urged.

Another major contention was the new Section 3(5)(b), which disqualifies advocates from being members of a State Bar Council or the BCI if they are convicted of offences with a minimum punishment of three years or if they are facing trial for such offences. The BCI called this provision “arbitrary” and prone to misuse.

“This can be misused by anyone at any time. The BCI suggests that both provisos should be omitted from the Act,” the statement read.

The BCI also criticized the draft Bill for proposing strikes and boycotts as separate misconducts under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. The Council argued that such actions should not be criminalised, as the Contempt of Courts Act already provides courts with sufficient power to act against disruptions.

With multiple issues unresolved, the BCI warned of escalating protests across the country. “The lawyers have treated this as the most draconian amendment. If these provisions are not omitted, we are prepared to take to the streets,” the Council declared.

The Ministry of Law and Justice has yet to respond to these objections.