Background & Historical Resistance
- 2000 Protest: Over 40,000 Indian lawyers protested against foreign law firms entering India, citing protection of domestic legal practice.
- Trigger: Law Commission’s proposal to amend the Advocates Act, 1961, to allow foreign legal consultants sparked nationwide backlash.
- Supreme Court 2018 Ruling: Reinforced that foreign firms cannot practice in India, even for non-litigation work.
Relevance : GS 2(Governance)
Current Policy Shift
- BCI’s May 2025 Notification: Permits foreign law firms and lawyers to practice in India only in:
- Non-litigious work
- Foreign and international law matters
- Reciprocal basis only (i.e., if Indian lawyers get similar rights abroad)
- 2023 Notification: First sign of softening stance; although challenged in Delhi HC, now effectively revived and formalised.
Arguments in Favour
- Lalit Bhasin (SILF): Once opposed, now supports it as an opportunity for mutual learning and growth for young Indian lawyers.
- Haigreve Khaitan: Sees the move as a catalyst for:
- Knowledge sharing
- Innovation
- Adoption of global best practices
Concerns & Criticism
- Legal Validity: Critics argue BCI’s move contradicts the Advocates Act, 1961 and SC’s 2018 ruling.
- Parliamentary Inaction: BCI acted without an amendment to the law; critics urge Parliament to amend the Act formally.
- “Old wine in new bottle”: Critics like Bhasin say the new rules merely repackage the 2023 notification.
- Reciprocity Questioned:
- Indian lawyers face restrictions (tests, permits) abroad.
- No clarity on which countries have extended true reciprocal access.
- Critics say reciprocity claim is “illusionary”.
Key Issues at Stake
- Legal Integrity: Whether BCI can bypass legislative amendment and Supreme Court verdict.
- Reciprocity Ambiguity: Lack of mutual recognition of qualifications and rights.
- Professional Impact: Possible long-term effects on Indian legal profession, especially small domestic law firms.
Conclusion
- While the policy signals India’s openness to global legal integration, lack of legal clarity, judicial approval, and genuine reciprocity could create structural conflicts and professional inequality.
