Latest news with #BarCouncilofIndia
Time of India
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
LLM degree holder fails bar test, HC sends notice to BCI
Representative Image AHMEDABAD: Gujarat high court Tuesday issued notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI) after a master's degree holder in law failed the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), which is essential for a law graduate to clear in order to become a lawyer. The AIBE follows an open book format designed to evaluate fundamental legal knowledge and establish a minimum competency benchmark for entry into the legal profession, alongside assessing candidates' analytical abilities. HC issued the notice after the candidate alleged lack of transparency in AIBE, as the body did not provide any justification for her failure, even after re-checking. The petition was filed by Urvi Acharya, who holds an LLM degree in criminal law. She appeared in the AIBE in Dec 2024 and was declared failed. She refused to accept the result and requested a re-checking. Even after re-checking, the department in BCI that conducts the AIBE conveyed that she failed the test. Acharya's counsel, advocate Pratik Jasani, told the court that seven of the 100 multiple-choice questions were officially withdrawn post-exam, which should have reduced the total score to 93, with the passing marks revised from 45 to 42. Jasani contended that the petitioner was a bright student and she passed her LLM in criminal law with first class. She attempted all 100 questions, and with seven of them being withdrawn, she ought to have been awarded grace marks. However, the authority did not make this clear.
The Hindu
17 hours ago
- Business
- The Hindu
BCI hits back at Society of Indian Law Firms over foreign law firm rules
The Bar Council of India (BCI) on Thursday (June 19, 2025) pushed back against criticism from the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), the apex body of law firms in India, over its recent move to let foreign lawyers and law firms work in India in a limited capacity. Responding to SILF's public statements, the BCI — the regulatory authority for the legal profession — said the group does not speak for most Indian law firms, especially smaller and newer ones. 'It (SILF) functions primarily as a closed group dominated by a few large, well-established firms. Its stance and actions do not reflect the concerns or aspirations of more than 90% of India's smaller or emerging law firms,' BCI said. Also read: India warms to foreign law firms, but legal concerns simmer In May 2025, the BCI introduced a notification permitting foreign lawyers to function in non-litigious areas only. BCI said the decision was 'based on extensive consultations and overwhelmingly positive feedback from Indian law firms across the country'. 'Contrary to the misleading claims being circulated, these rules do not allow foreign lawyers to practice Indian law, litigate in Indian courts, or appear before any Indian tribunal or statutory authority,' it said. The rules restrict foreign law firms and lawyers strictly to advisory roles in non-litigious matters involving foreign law, international law, or international commercial arbitration, all subject to regulatory oversight and a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Government of India. Committee set up BCI said it has already constituted a high-level committee chaired by Cyril Shroff and comprising senior partners from leading law firms, who have been tasked with reviewing the rules and incorporating feedback from stakeholders, including SILF. The council has also resolved to individually engage with law firms nationwide and are working to convene a national-level conference of Indian law firms in Mumbai this September. 'Old win in new bottle' While speaking to The Hindu last month, SILF chairman Lalit Bhasin while welcoming the entry of foreign law firms and lawyers in India raised a few legal concerns. Mr. Bhasin said the BCI's move might go against a 2018 Supreme Court ruling. While the earlier 2023 BCI notification was put on hold, he said that the latest notification feels like 'old wine in a new bottle'. He also suggested that Parliament should step in and amend the law to avoid confusion. On the other hand, the BCI targeted SILF saying it has 'historically acted to preserve its members commercial interests at the expense of young, deserving Indian lawyers and new legal practices striving to grow in an increasingly competitive and global legal arena'. BCI alleged that many of the firms comprising SILF have maintained 'close, long-standing professional affiliations with major foreign law firms'. 'These affiliations have enabled a parallel legal services economy, wherein foreign legal work is funnelled through select Indian firms. This has systematically denied fair opportunities to the vast majority of Indian legal practitioners,' it said. It also stated that SILF has, for over 20 years, opposed any serious engagement with foreign firms — hurting Indian law firms that want to grow internationally.
Mint
3 days ago
- Business
- Mint
Mint Explainer: What's at stake as Bar Council reviews its rules on foreign law firms
On 12 June the Bar Council of India (BCI) set up a high-powered committee headed by Cyril Shroff, managing partner at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, to evaluate the implications of newly notified rules that permit foreign law firms to practice foreign and international law in India in a regulated, non-litigious capacity. Mint explains why the BCI set up the committee and what its recommendations could mean for the future of India's legal sector. Why was the committee formed? The committee was formed following the BCI's notification on 13 May of new rules that allow foreign lawyers and law firms to advise on foreign law, international law and arbitration matters in India on a reciprocal and regulated basis. These rules prohibit litigation and focus on cross-border transactions and international disputes. The BCI's aim is to promote India as a hub for international arbitration while protecting the interests of Indian legal professionals. The new framework also allows Indian lawyers to register as foreign law practitioners abroad without relinquishing the right to practice Indian law domestically. Also read: Why India's law firms are in a disputes hiring frenzy Previously, foreign firms could only offer legal advice on a 'fly-in, fly-out' basis, meaning they couldn't set up shop in India and only conduct specific, short-term, advisory engagements related to non-Indian legal matters by sending their lawyers on temporary visits. Now, with strict registration and compliance requirements in place, the move marks a cautious opening up of the India's legal sector, with corporate legal spending expected to cross ₹60,000 crore this year. However, a backlash from Indian law firms—especially over potential constitutional conflicts and competitive disadvantages—prompted the BCI to initiate a thorough review of the plan. What concerns have law firms raised? Several Indian law firms argue that the new rules bypass the Supreme Court's BCI vs A.K. Balaji judgment of 2018, which held that only Indian citizens may practice law in India, even in non-litigation matters, unless Parliament amends the Advocates Act. Their main concerns include: Also read | So many law graduates, so few top jobs: What's holding them back? Lalit Bhasin, president of the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), previously cautioned against the unchecked entry of foreign law firms in a press release. 'Allowing foreign law firms without a legislative amendment is not only legally untenable but also threatens to destabilise the domestic legal profession," he said. What will the committee look into? The committee, headed by Cyril Shroff, includes other top legal minds such as Ajay Bahl (AZB & Partners), Suhail Nathani (ELP), Sandip Bhagat (S&R Associates), Mahesh Agarwal (Agarwal Law Associates), and Amit Kapur (JSA). BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra is a special invitee. Its mandate includes: The committee has been asked to submit its final report in 30 to 40 days. Based on its recommendations, the BCI will take a final call after consulting both Indian and foreign stakeholders. What are the likely outcomes? Legal experts expect the committee to recommend phased reforms that promote global integration while ensuring regulatory parity. 'If the committee plays it right, it has a chance to turn the current unease into long-term strategic strength for Indian law firms," said Prachi Shrivastava, founder of Lawfinity Solutions, a legal marketing firm. She added that a reciprocity-first model and a phased-entry approach—starting with backend advisory work—could ease the transition for Indian firms. Automated systems for fee disclosures, conflict checks, and jurisdictional limits could boost transparency without overwhelming smaller firms. Also read: Can Vijay Mallya return home? He could. But it won't be a smooth landing. Amit Tungare, managing partner at Asahi Legal, expects the panel to push for 'clearer demarcation of practice areas, standardised partnership frameworks, and reciprocity mechanisms that actually benefit Indian firms seeking global expansion—not just foreign firms entering India". 'This committee has the opportunity to usher in clarity and balance—by ensuring fair competition, pushing for domestic reforms that modernise Indian practice models, and encouraging global visibility for Indian firms," he added. Ashima Obhan, senior partner at Obhan & Associates, emphasised that 'phased liberalisation, symmetry in regulation, capacity-building measures, and clear delineation of permissible activities would go a long way in harmonising interests".
The Hindu
10-06-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
India's legal bridge is one of reciprocity, not roadblocks
In May this year, the Bar Council of India (BCI) implemented the Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India (hereinafter 'rules'). While many within the legal profession lauded the rules, a few law firms based in the United States have voiced strong objections, calling the rules a 'non-trade barrier' and a 'deliberate move to exclude or freeze out' U.S. law firms from engaging with the Indian legal ecosystem. However, such criticism reflects a limited appreciation of the statutory mandate of the BCI and an inadequate understanding of India's comprehensive regulatory framework governing its legal affairs. On the contrary, the rules strike a balance by facilitating the entry of foreign practitioners and firms while upholding professional standards and safeguarding the interests of stakeholders within the Indian legal profession. The criticism First, it is contended that the rules create a 'non-tariff trade barrier' by imposing procedural restrictions on U.S.-based law firms and legal professionals, thereby attempting to 'freeze out' their entry into the Indian legal landscape. Second, it is alleged that the interests of the U.S. were overlooked during global consultations preceding the framing of the rules, making it difficult for U.S. law firms and professionals to comply with the stipulated mandates. Third, the requirement to disclose details such as the 'nature of legal work' and 'client identity' is said to conflict with the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules on client confidentiality. Fourth, the regulations governing fly-in, fly-out provisions have been criticised for being inconsistent with the principle of reciprocity, as they impose duration-based, disclosure-based restrictions not similarly applied to Indian counterparts operating in the U.S. Fifth, the contention is that the rules have been introduced as a surprise move, providing no transition period for adjustment, thereby placing U.S. firms and professionals at a disadvantage. Finally, it is argued that the rules could adversely impact U.S.-India bilateral trade and legal engagement, as they may discourage Indian corporations from undertaking transactions involving U.S. laws, owing to a dearth of legal professionals who are skilled in U.S. laws. A reality check First, the BCI is not a trade body, but a statutory body to maintain standards of professional conduct and safeguard the interests of legal professionals across India. Second, constitutionally and technically, the practice of law cannot form part of a trade agreement, as it is governed under Entries 77 and 78 of the Union List, unlike entries dealing with trade and commerce under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Second, In Bar of Indian Lawyers Through Its President Jasbir Singh Malik vs D.K. Gandhi (2024), it was held that it was a contract of personal service, thereby segregating it from trade and business practices. Third, India recently chose not to include legal services in the United Kingdom-India Free Trade Agreement, despite facing significant international pressure. This reflects India's consistent position that legal services require a distinct regulatory framework. Fourth, the impugned rules do not bar foreign law firms and practitioners but liberalise the Indian legal ecosystem, albeit in a structured and regulated manner. For instance, Rules 3 and 4 permit foreign law firms to operate in India, subject to registration and compliance with ethical and professional conditions. Further, the fly-in, fly-out model, under the proviso to rule 3(1), allows temporary visits, subject to an aggregate stay not exceeding 60 days within a 12-month period. Fifth, Indian legal professionals lack universal access to the U.S. legal system and are subjected to rigorous, state-specific, examination-based licensing regimes. The reciprocity requirement under the rules, subjecting the U.S. counterparts to similar regulatory compliances, merely establishes equivalence. Sixth, rule 4(h), which mandates a certificate of 'good standing at the bar', has been flagged by U.S. stakeholders as problematic, owing to its decentralised ecosystem. However, this limitation stems from the U.S. regulatory structure and cannot be attributed to the BCI or India. Notably, rule 6 of chapter III allows for flexibility, empowering the BCI to verify such credentials holistically and on a case-by-case basis, thereby ensuring an accommodating approach, subject to an adherence to basic ethical and professional standards. Seventh, the requirement to disclose the nature and the extent of legal work does not dilute client confidentiality, as the objective is to obtain general information about the legal work or transaction. This ensures that the activities of foreign legal professionals remain within the permitted contours of legal practice in India. There has been debate and discussion Finally, the criticism regarding lack of consultations or a transition period before the operationalisation of the rules holds no ground. Debates and discussion have been ongoing for over two decades, encompassing expert committee reports, global consultations, and key judicial decisions such as Lawyers Collective vs Bar Council of India (2009) and Bar Council of India vs A.K. Balaji (2018) which have collectively laid the foundation for the present regulatory framework. Far from being a barrier, the rules aim to create a cooperative bridge liberalising the Indian legal landscape in a measured manner, while safeguarding professional integrity, client confidentiality, and upholding the vital principles of reciprocity and ethical accountability. Shivang Tripathi is a Senior Research Fellow at the Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. Shaiwal Satyarthi is a Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
Hindustan Times
06-06-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
CJI Gavai hails decision to allow foreign lawyers to practise in India
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai on Thursday welcomed the Bar Council of India's (BCI) decision to allow foreign lawyers and law firms to practise foreign law in India, terming it a crucial step in opening up India's legal ecosystem to global best practices and elevating the country's status as an international arbitration hub. Delivering the keynote address at the 3rd Edition of the International Conference on 'Arbitrating Indo-UK Commercial Disputes' in London, CJI Gavai said: 'The decision of the Bar Council of India will provide a pathway to introduce global best practices in the Indian arbitration ecosystem which will be effective in increasing the overall quality of arbitration in India.' The CJI was referring to the BCI's notification on May 14 this year, that formally brought into effect the rules for the registration and regulation of foreign lawyers and foreign law firms in India. These rules permit foreign lawyers to practise only non-litigious matters involving foreign law, international law and arbitration, especially in cross-border and commercial disputes. 'Foreign lawyers may participate in international commercial arbitration conducted in India, provided such arbitration involves foreign or international law, thereby promoting India as a viable destination for international arbitration without compromising the rights of Indian legal professionals,' he said. Until this regulatory change, foreign lawyers were barred from practising in India unless they met the stringent requirements under the Advocates Act, 1961. Even non-litigious work was largely off limits unless done through the narrow 'fly-in, fly-out' channel. The CJI noted that the legal and business communities of India and the UK were growing increasingly interconnected. 'This strong camaraderie is well-positioned to foster the expansion of the arbitration ecosystem in both countries in the near future,' he added. Justice Gavai further emphasised that India's aspiration to become a preferred venue for international arbitration required more than just legal infrastructure: 'It is not an overstatement to say that for India to become a leading hub for international commercial arbitration, the international arbitration community must have access to high-quality, independent and impartial arbitrators, both as a matter of fact and of perception,' he said. Highlighting the need for robust institutional support, CJI Gavai pointed to India's recent growth in home-grown arbitration centres such as the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), the India Arbitration and Mediation Centre in Hyderabad, and the Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre. He also cited the central government's 2019 move to establish the India International Arbitration Centre in New Delhi. 'These centres strive for professionalism, efficiency, transparency, and impartiality in arbitral proceedings by providing high quality of arbitral services and by maintaining panels of accredited arbitrators both at national and international level,' he said. The CJI acknowledged that India had much to learn from the UK's experience. 'India can learn extensively from the United Kingdom, which has some of the world's leading arbitral institutions here in London such as the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)…These institutions are known for their access to the most eminent arbitrators, efficient, flexible, and impartial administration of arbitration and other alternate dispute resolution proceedings,' he added. Stressing the finality and certainty of arbitral awards as a core strength of international arbitration, the CJI said, 'The finality of an arbitral award is the most crucial aspect in international commercial arbitration. It ensures that once an award is rendered, it is conclusive and binding on the parties involved, providing them with certainty and closure.' The BCI's 2025 notification builds on its earlier 2023 framework, which had laid the groundwork for regulating foreign legal practice while protecting the interests of Indian lawyers. It introduces a reciprocity-based model that also allows Indian law firms and advocates to register as foreign legal consultants in jurisdictions abroad without giving up their rights to practise Indian law domestically. To ensure oversight and prevent unfair competition, the rules impose strict registration and renewal norms, including documentation on legal qualifications, no-objection certificates, and declarations of compliance. The move is being seen as part of India's effort to modernise its legal services market.
