含羞草社区

In-house community’s dreams of recognition under the Advocates Act shattered after withdrawal of controversial amendment bill. Manokamana reports.

The release of the draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, by 含羞草社区 law ministry was met with cheers from the in-house community, particularly from bodies such as the General Counsels’ Association of India, which had lobbied to be recognised as “legal practitioners” under the Advocates Act, 1961.

However, the joy was short-lived as the draft received an equally negative reaction from advocates, prompting the consultation process to be shelved early. The draft amendment included provisions to expand the power of the government over the Bar Council of India (BCI), the autonomous body that oversees the legal profession.

The government has stated that it will introduce a fresh amendment draft at a later date.

Lalit Bhasin, the president of the Society of Indian Law Firms in New Delhi, aptly shares that “at the moment everything is in a melting pot”.

Ashish Goel, practising advocate at the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi, comments: “The draft contains several proposals that have ulterior objectives”, to which Bhasin adds that, “the peers and generally the legal profession has appreciated the withdrawal of the draft due to obvious deficiencies”.

With much speculation surrounding the topic, India Business Law Journal asked practising lawyers and in-house counsel for their thoughts on the controversy.

No interference please

A major point of concern seems to be the proposal to have the central government as an authority over the BCI. Goel calls this a “state capture of the BCI”.

The BCI was established by the parliament under the Advocates Act, 1961, as a statutory body to oversee and regulate legal practice and education. The body fulfils the role of a regulatory authority by establishing guidelines for professional conduct and etiquette within the legal community.

Amit Singh, a Gurgaon-based legal counsel at Sumitomo Mitsui Auto Service, says this is objectionable because it “will set a dangerous precedent going forward [that] any incoming government citing its own convenience will alter with the provisions of the act … It will strike at the heart of legal autonomy.”

Surjendu Sankar Das, a New Delhi-based advocate-on-record at the Supreme Court, shares this sentiment. “The provision is wide and confers an unfettered right to the central government to give directions to the BCI. The proposed control by the central government in the functioning of the BCI is unwarranted.”

This is particularly concerning, as Chennai-based K Satish Kumar, group chief legal officer at Intellect Design Arena, opines: “If the government assumes a direct role in steering the BCI, it risks politicising a body that must remain impartial to uphold justice. This isn’t just about control, it’s about preserving the delicate balance that keeps our judiciary and legal practice robust.”

New Delhi-based Avimukt Dar, founding partner of IndusLaw, says: “The purpose of the profession is to aid and assist the courts in litigation where the government is often on the opposing side. Since our legal system follows the adversarial process in discovery of the truth, it is critical that advocates are free to act without fear or favour.”

Goel adds to this: “Today, the government is the largest litigant in courts, and any control of the political executive in the BCI has the potential to compromise and distort courtroom processes and the justice delivery system.” He emphasises that “there cannot be an independent judiciary without an independent bar”.

There is a common consensus among the fraternity that the BCI must remain independent. “The BCI, for all its imperfections, understands the profession’s nuances better than a bureaucratic apparatus ever could,” says Kumar. Thus, the government attempting to take over matters falling under the BCI’s purview is a concerning thought. “This risks turning a professional matter into a political football – subject to diplomatic pressures or economic lobbying, rather than the interests of justice.”

Right to strike

Seeking and fighting for justice is a cornerstone of the legal profession, and a legal battle before the court is not the only method to do so. “Lawyers [in India] often resort to strikes to protest against judicial misconduct, unfair laws or systemic issues,” says Todd Leitstein, the director, legal and IP (global litigation) at Nokia in Dallas, Texas, who has been involved in dispute-related matters in India for more than a decade.

The draft had proposed to restrict this right of lawyers, sparking an uproar. Das shares: “Symbolic or one-day protests are permitted if they do not interfere with court proceedings or violate clients’ rights. The amendment effectively puts a complete ban or bar on strikes.”

Leitstein who is also a member of IBLJ’s editorial board adds: “There aren’t many groups who would support a provision intended to curb their own voice.”

The provision was introduced to prevent disruptions to judicial work, however that may not be the full picture. “While the intent behind this provision is to maintain uninterrupted court operations, it may restrict advocates’ ability to express grievances or push for systemic changes through collective action … the overall impact could lead to a reduction in the effectiveness of collective bargaining within the profession … to address issues such as judicial delays or unethical practices,” notes Noida-based Subir Bikas Mitra, an independent arbitrator, conciliator and legal adviser.

This restriction has broader implications than just limiting strike days, or the collective bargaining ability of lawyers. “When it comes to impartiality and independence of judges, I believe lawyers not only have a right, but also a duty, to protest democratically,” says Goel. Mitra adds to this sentiment: “The ability to go on strike has historically been a powerful tool for lawyers to highlight grievances or demand reforms, and the restriction on this could be seen as a threat to the independence of the bar.”