Proposed amendments to Advocates Act will demolish autonomy of Bar: BCI to Law Ministry

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has written to the Union Law Ministry expressing "profound concerns" over the proposed draft Advocates Amendment Bill, 2025 citing serious implications for the legal profession and a threat to the autonomy of the Council..The Union Law Ministry on February 13 circulated the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, inviting feedback from the public."The Bar Council of India is compelled to make this representation to express its profound concerns regarding the proposed Draft Advocates Amendment Bill, 2025," the BCI stated in an official statement.The Council emphasised that after thorough examination, multiple provisions in the draft bill require immediate rectification.BCI Chairman and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra highlighted that despite multiple rounds of discussions with the Law Secretary and the Chief Controller of Accounts, the final draft included "unilateral insertions" that deviated from previously agreed terms.."It is shocking that in draft publication, several material changes have been made by some officials and the Ministry of Law," the BCI noted, adding that the draft attempts to "demolish the very concept of autonomy and independence of the Bar."The letter highlighted that the legal community across India is agitated, with protests already beginning. "The lawyers throughout the country are agitated, strong protest is bound to occur. The Lawyers of Delhi District Courts have already gone on strike, and this protest is likely to spread throughout the country if no positive assurance from the Ministry is made soon," the statement warned..Government nominees in BCI [Section 4(1)(d)] - The draft bill allows the Central government to nominate up to three members to the BCI, a move the Council considers a "draconian provision." The BCI asserts this was never discussed in meetings and was "arbitrarily inserted.”Regulation of foreign lawyers and law firms - The BCI has raised objections to the proposed shift in regulatory authority over foreign lawyers and law firms from the BCI to the Centre. The Council argues that this contradicts the Supreme Court’s judgment in the AK Balaji case, which vested this responsibility with the BCI. It states that it has already framed comprehensive regulations in 2022 to govern the entry of foreign legal practitioners, and it insists that this authority should remain with the BCI.“The Legal profession as a whole is to be regulated and governed by Bar Council of India, then why and how the Foreign Lawyers and Law Firms could be governed by Central Government,” the letter said..Central government’s power to issue directions (Section 49B) - The draft bill empowers the Centre to issue binding directions to the BCI, a provision that the Council deems “wholly unacceptable.” The BCI argues that this undermines its autonomy and independence, which are essential for the self-regulation of the legal profession.Enrollment eligibility and fee structure (Section 24) - The BCI has objected to changes in the enrollment fee structure, which would allow the Central government to determine the fees instead of the BCI. The Council had proposed a fixed fee of ₹18,000 for state bar councils and ₹3,000 for the BCI, with periodic revisions based on inflation. The draft bill, however, leaves the fee structure entirely to the government, which the BCI claims could lead to arbitrary changes and confusion.Definition of “legal practitioner” - The BCI has criticised the draft bill for diluting the definition of “legal practitioner,” which proposes to include all individuals and entities engaged in legal practice, whether in courts, tribunals, or advisory roles. The Council argues that the draft bill’s vague criteria could create loopholes, allowing unregulated practices by foreign legal entities.Deletion of “practice of law” definition - The BCI had proposed a comprehensive definition of “practice of law” to include both litigious and non-litigious legal work. The draft bill omits this definition, which the Council believes will lead to ambiguity and unregulated practices, particularly by foreign legal entities..Removal of advocates from state roll (Section 24B) - The draft bill proposes that advocates convicted of offences with a sentence of three years or more be removed from the state roll. The BCI has suggested that this threshold be increased to seven years, arguing that the current provision is too harsh and could unfairly penalise advocates.Omission of welfare provisions - The BCI had proposed a new chapter on Advocates Protection and Welfare, which has been omitted from the draft bill. The Council has emphasised the need for statutory protections for advocates against violence, harassment and malicious prosecution, as well as welfare schemes for lawyers, including pensions, insurance and healthcare.Strikes and boycotts - According to the BCI, strikes/boycotts cannot be treated separately, as proposed in the draft bill. It has contended that courts are already empowered under the Contempt of Courts Act to address disruptions, making it unnecessary to classify such actions as misconduct under Section 35. Thus, it has asked for Sections 26(c) and (d) dealing with strikes and boycotts to be omitted..Amendment to Section 48B (2) (Power to give directions) - According to BCI, the existing Act empowers it to supervise and guide state bar councils. The proposed amendment seeks to establish a committee led by a former High Court Judge and four senior advocates to intervene when a state bar council is unable to function. Thus, it has asked for this provision to be omitted in toto.Addition of a new Section 36B(3) - The draft proposes penalising state bar councils and disciplinary committees for failing to resolve complaints within two years. According to BCI, since these bodies perform quasi-judicial functions, imposing strict timelines and punishments is inappropriate. The sub-section should be suitably amended.Replacement of "rules" with "regulations" - Replacing "Rules" with "Regulations" weakens the Bar Council’s authority, the letter states.