CMS IndusLaw has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules allowing the entry of foreign law firms and lawyers in India.

The four partners of CMS IndusLaw - Avimukt Dar, Gaurav Dani, Kartik Ganapathy and Suneeth Katarki - have challenged the Rules.

The firm has also challenged the show cause notice issued to them by the BCI in August 2025 over the alleged unauthorised collaboration between IndusLaw and international law firm CMS.

The Bar Council of India had, in March 2023, notified the Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022, paving the way for foreign law firms to enter India. The Rules were then amended in May 2025. 

The petitioners argue that the BCI has no power under the Advocates Act to frame rules governing the entry of foreign law firms and lawyers in India. They claim that the Rules promulgated are ultra vires the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Section 49 of the Advocates Act does not empower BCI to frame rules to regulate the entry of foreign law firms and foreign lawyers to engage in the practice of law in India, the plea states. 

“The Impugned BCI Rules go beyond the parent statute (i.e., the Advocates Act) by conferring on Respondent No. 1 powers and functions which are not conferred on it by the Advocates Act. The Impugned BCI Rules travel far beyond the Advocates Act by simply deeming foreign lawyers to be advocates, without requiring them to be enrolled or admitted to the rolls of the State Bar Councils – thus dilute a mandatory requirement under the Advocates Act. The Impugned BCI Rules empower Respondent No. 1 to permit persons other than “advocates” to practice law in India in terms of the Impugned BCI Rules which is in direct contravention of the Advocates Act,”  the plea said. 

Further, it stated that the gazette notification of the Rules does not mention that they have been approved either by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or the Central government, as mandated by the Advocates Act.  Therefore, they do not have the force of law, the plea adds.

“The Impugned BCI Rules state that they have been framed by Respondent No. 1 inter alia under section 49(1)(c) and section 49(1)(e) of the Advocates Act. The first proviso to section 49(1) of the Advocates Act provides that no rules made with reference to clause (c) shall have effect unless they have been approved by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. Similarly, the second proviso to section 49(1) provides that no rules made under clause (e) shall have effect unless they have been approved by the Central Government. The gazette notification of the Impugned BCI Rules do not mention that these have been approved by either the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India or by the Central Government. Therefore, in absence of the mandatory approval as envisaged under the Advocates Act, the Impugned BCI Rules do not have the force of law.”

As regards the notice sent by the BCI over "violative" combinations with foreign firms, the plea states that the notice refers to certain statements allegedly made by the firm. However, no such statement has ever been made by its office bearers, the plea stated. 

The Court has been told that the firm replied to the BCI notice and asked for details about the basis on which proceedings have been initiated against them; however, the BCI has not provided them with anything. 

Further, it states that earlier this month, the BCI issued a notice to the firm and its office bearers, requiring their personal appearance before the bar body on November 16.

The petition was heard by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on Thursday. 

After hearing the case, the Court questioned the BCI rules, especially their provisions levying “drastic penalties” such as suspending the registration of foreign law firms based solely on a preliminary inquiry. 

The Court directed BCI to defer its proceedings against CMS IndusLaw, initially scheduled for November 16. Meanwhile, the Court also ordered the petitioners to provide BCI with the documents sought by the Council in its August notice. 

Further, the Bench also granted the BCI counsel time to obtain instructions. The Court also asked the counsel to inform it whether the Rules have been promulgated with the approval of CJI and the Central government.

Senior Advocate Amit Sibal and Advocate Saket Sikri represented IndusLaw. They were assisted by advocates Raghavv Sabharwal, Harsh Vardhan Singh, Ajay Pal Singh Khullar and Ayush Srivastava. 

Another law firm, Dentons Link Legal, had earlier moved the High Court against the Rules and the BCI's August 2025 notice. In that matter, the BCI told the Court that it would withdraw the press release naming Dentons Link Legal, CMS IndusLaw.

Shortly after the BCI announced its amended Rules in May 2025, international law firm CMS announced that IndusLaw has become one of its member firms.

"This is an exclusive arrangement between CMS and IndusLaw and all CMS work will go to IndusLaw," IndusLaw co-founder Gaurav Dani told Bar & Bench in an interview.

This was the second collaboration between an Indian firm and an international firm, after Dentons Link Legal was announced in May 2023.