BCI tells Delhi High Court it will withdraw press release naming Dentons Link Legal, CMS IndusLaw

The Delhi High Court on Thursday recorded the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) decision to withdraw its August 5 press release that had named Dentons Link Legal and CMS IndusLaw in connection with alleged unauthorised collaborations between Indian and foreign law firms. [Atul Sharma v. Bar Council of Delhi]

A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that pursuant to its earlier direction, the BCI revisited the matter and resolved to issue a fresh release.

“Pursuant to our order, the matter has been revisited by BCI and it has been decided to issue a fresh release. No permission is required from the court to issue a fresh press release. BCI has decided to withdraw the press release and issue a fresh press release,” the order recorded.

The Court directed the BCI to file its counter-affidavit within four weeks. Dentons Link Legal will have two weeks thereafter to file its rejoinder. In the meantime, the interim order restraining the BCI from taking a final decision on the show cause notice issued to the firm will continue.

On August 21, the High Court had directed the BCI not to take a final decision on the show cause notice until the next hearing. The Court also expressed concern over the BCI’s August 5, 2025 press release, which named the firm while proceedings were still at the notice stage, and asked the regulator to revisit the release.

The press release flagged unauthorised collaborations or combinations between Indian and foreign law firms, particularly mentioning CMS IndusLaw and Dentons Link Legal. The BCI also revealed that it would send notices to these combinations of firms, with the threat of action in case of non-compliance.

Dentons Link Legal challenged this press release before the High Court.

The petition, filed through Link Legal Executive Chairman Atul Sharma, alleges that the press release was “highly defamatory and prejudicial” since it made public allegations of misconduct before any inquiry or adjudication. According to the plea, by directing the firm not to continue with the “Dentons Link Legal” branding, the BCI effectively passed an adjudicatory order in the guise of a notice, causing irreparable damage to the firm’s professional reputation.

Dentons Link Legal has also challenged the validity of the amended BCI Rules on foreign lawyers. It contends that the Advocates Act, 1961 confers no power on the BCI to regulate foreign law firms or lawyers, a position noted in the Law Commission’s 266th Report and in the draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025. The Bill - later withdrawn - sought to insert a new Section 49A(cc) empowering the Central government to frame such rules, underscoring, according to the petitioners, that the BCI lacks jurisdiction. The absence of mandatory approvals from the Chief Justice of India and the government under Section 49 is also cited to argue that the amendments are ultra vires.

The petition takes issue with the scope of the regulations, arguing that they create new categories such as “Indian-foreign law firms” and “dual-qualified Indian advocates.” While these rules allow foreign law firms to practice international law, Indian firms and advocates are barred from doing the same, allegedly violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Dentons Link Legal further argues that its combination with Dentons is not a merger but a Swiss Verein membership, with no foreign lawyers retained in India and no practice of foreign law domestically. The firm stresses that it remains an Indian-owned and Indian-registered practice.

Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam appeared for Dentons Link Legal.