Latest news with #SILF
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- Business
- Business Standard
To prepare a centralised registry of all lawyers, law firms, says BCI
The Bar Council of India (BCI) is in the process of preparing a centralised registry of all law firms and lawyers to establish a democratically elected, pan-India organisation of Indian law firms, the lawyers' governing body said. "This organisation will ensure that voices from every region and practice level are included in the policy dialogues," BCI said. The Council was responding to the Society of Indian Law Firms' (SILF's) opposition to the entry of foreign lawyers and law firms into the country. In its press release, the BCI said SILF did not represent the broad spectrum of Indian law firms. 'It 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 per cent of India's smaller or emerging law firms,' the BCI said in a press note. The Council, which is the apex lawyers' representative and governance body, had on June 14 constituted a high-level committee chaired by Cyril Shroff, the managing partner of law firm Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, to examine concerns around the May 2025 notification on the entry and operation of foreign lawyers and law firms in India. Shortly after this, on June 17, SILF formed a committee of lawyers, headed by Shardul Shroff of Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, to suggest changes to the recently notified BCI rules allowing foreign lawyers and law firms to work in India. The BCI said that the consistent feedback it had received indicated that SILF 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. The lawyers' governing body also alleged that law firms comprising SILF had maintained close affiliations with major foreign legal firms, enabling them to create a 'parallel legal services economy, wherein foreign legal work is funnelled through select Indian firms'. Corporate, transactional, and arbitration-related legal services in India have been monopolised by a small group of law firms, which has stifled the growth of smaller law firms and talented young lawyers, the BCI said. 'The BCI, through these regulations, seeks to democratize access to cross-border legal work, and dismantle the structural monopolies that have long existed within the Indian legal services sector,' the release said.
The Hindu
a day 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.
India Gazette
a day ago
- Business
- India Gazette
Bar Council stands by foreign law firm policy amid SILF resistance
New Delhi [India], June 19 (ANI): The Bar Council of India (BCI) has initiated a nationwide consultative process led by a high-level expert committee to review feedback on its amended Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2025. The move comes amid criticism from the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), which the BCI has accused of monopolising access to international legal work and misrepresenting the broader interests of the Indian legal community. The expert panel, chaired by eminent corporate lawyer Cyril Shroff, includes senior legal figures such as Ajay Bahl, Suhail Nathani, Sandip Bhagat, Mahesh Agarwal, and Amit Kapur. It has been tasked with collecting and incorporating stakeholder suggestions while reaffirming the BCI's commitment to fairness, accountability, and legal sovereignty. The Bar Council has invited written submissions from law firms, professionals, and the public within 15 days. The points of reference for the consultation are available on the official BCI website, according to the BCI statement issued on Thursday... The BCI's response targets what it describes as SILF's 'obstructionist stance,' asserting that the group represents only a small clique of large, established firms and not the majority of India's 90-95% small and mid-sized practices. These emerging firms, the BCI argues, have long been excluded from cross-border legal opportunities due to the gatekeeping and foreign affiliations maintained by SILF's dominant members. The Bar Council emphasised that its amended 2025 Regulations are designed to democratise access to global legal practice, particularly for young lawyers and underrepresented law firms seeking international exposure. Contrary to SILF's claims, BCI clarified that foreign law firms are not permitted to practice Indian law, appear before courts or tribunals, or handle litigation-related matters. The 2025 Regulations, as clarified by the BCI, impose strict boundaries on foreign participation: No practice of Indian law in any form is allowed. No appearances in Indian courts, tribunals, or quasi-judicial authorities (Rule 8(2)(b)). Permitted activities are confined to advisory roles involving foreign law, public/private international law, or international arbitration. Prohibited activities include conveyancing, title verification, and legal drafting related to Indian proceedings (Rule 8(2)(c)). International arbitration participation is allowed only where disputes involve foreign law or non-Indian parties (Rule 8(2)(e)). All foreign firms must first obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Government of India (Rule 4(a)). In a bid to make policymaking more inclusive, BCI has also announced a National Conference of Indian Law Firms to be held in Mumbai in September 2025. The event will provide a platform for nationwide participation, particularly from regional and smaller firms traditionally excluded from SILF's centralised control. Simultaneously, the BCI is working to create a central registry of law firms and their lawyers, which will eventually enable a democratically elected national body to represent India's legal profession--a contrast to SILF, which the BCI notes has not held internal elections for decades. The BCI alleged that SILF's core motivation stems from fear of losing its exclusive foreign work pipeline. 'Many of these same firms already maintain foreign offices or unofficial tie-ups with foreign law firms,' said the Council. 'Their opposition is not to foreign entry per se, but to the possibility that foreign clients may choose to engage with newer and smaller Indian firms instead.' BCI has firmly rejected claims that the amended rules compromise India's legal independence. 'The Regulations explicitly protect Indian legal sovereignty. No foreign lawyer or firm will be allowed to interpret, argue, or practice Indian law,' the statement reads. Any attempt to circumvent the provisions by Indian or foreign entities will attract regulatory action, including monetary penalties, suspension of registration, disqualification, and possible disciplinary or criminal proceedings, the BCI stated in the statement. The BCI has reiterated that the Regulations are legally valid, currently in force, and not under abeyance or judicial challenge. They are designed to uplift the entire legal profession, especially young, talented advocates who seek a global presence. While the Council expressed its openness to genuine concerns, it condemned misinformation campaigns and fear-mongering. 'The BCI is committed to reform--not for the few, but for the many,' it stated. 'The future of Indian law must be inclusive, competitive, and global.' (ANI)
India Today
06-06-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Judges call for environmental protection, condemn attack on environmentalists
On the occasion of World Environment Day, recently retired Supreme Court Justice Abhay S Oka and sitting Supreme Court Justice Sanjay Karol called out the attacks on activists and the Judiciary for trying to protect the at the inaugural ceremony for the Climate Change Conference organised by the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Justice Karol drew attention to the annual problem of seasonal air pollution in Delhi and the stink from the pollution in the river Yamuna. Justice Karol also called for cooperation between industry, the judiciary, the government and the people to protect the environment.'I see that there is no conflict between activism in the Indian judiciary and economic growth, or the development of the economy or otherwise in India. There is no doubt that all of us have to work together to achieve the constitutional goal that is set out in the preamble,' said Justice Oka, who was also honoured at the event for his contribution to the development of environmental law in India, praised the activists who fight for the environment, despite the opposition they face.'What I find from my long experience—20 years as a lawyer and nearly 22 years as a judge of three constitutional courts—is that very few citizens show enthusiasm and courage to take up environmental issues. It is not easy to address environmental concerns, as those who raise these issues rarely get active societal support,' said Justice people seriously addressing environmental issues are branded anti-development, accused of obstructing so-called developmental activities. That is the greatest tragedy of our fighting for the environment are fighting for social and economic justice guaranteed under the Constitution. Their ultimate aim is upholding the rights under Article 21. However, those advocating for environmental causes rarely receive societal support. When society doesn't support them, how can we expect public authorities or the government to support them?' said Oka Oka also said that there is no conflict between development and protection of the environment.'Someday, we should debate the concept of development itself. Do we necessarily mean construction of huge buildings, roads, and flyovers, or should development mean providing basic amenities to the poor and needy? That is a separate debate altogether,' said Karol also called for 'grassroots solutions' to environmental "If you were to see our report card in the last 75 years, or since the 1980s, what is it really we have done? Have we done enough to protect the environment, or not? My view is this: a lot needs to be done, at all levels. And I would borrow an expression that the solution to the problem now is grassroots solutions to an international problem. So, grassroots solutions for global challenges. The way forward, according to me, is that we as individuals have to take up the causes pertaining to the environment,' said Justice High Court Justice Jasmeet Singh also spoke about the need to maintain a balance between development and environmental protection, particularly in light of the economic impact. "Limited attention is given to environmental care because of the economic challenges it poses. Transitioning to sustainable practices is frequently seen as costly or disruptive, especially in a developing economy like India. There is significant dependence on fossil fuels. This creates a sense of conflict between environmental responsibility and economic growth. But I believe that challenge can be transformed into an opportunity, an instrument of meaningful change," said Justice advocate Lalit Bhasin, President of SILF and Chairman of the CII National Committee on Legal Services, also said that 'Sustainability is no longer an optional agenda; it is a core element of national and business competitiveness.'Meanwhile, at a separate event to mark World Environment Day at the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Chairman NGT Justice Prakash Shrivastava called for 'collective action' to protect the environment. Highlighting the urgent need to curb plastic pollution, Justice Shrivastava said that 'The National Green Tribunal stands as a sentinel for environmental protection, but our efforts alone are insufficient without the active participation of every citizen.' Must Watch
Hans India
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Yamuna pollution, smog biggest environmental issues in Delhi: SC Judge Sanjay Karol
New Delhi: Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Karol on Thursday said smog and Yamuna River pollution were the biggest environmental issues in the national capital. The judge was speaking at the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) Climate Change Conference and Awards 2025 when he emphasised on environmental protection. Each citizen, he said, was responsible to protect the environment and the onus wasn't just on the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. 'We have to make sure that the environment, be it in any form, has to be protected. I would also say this, that over the years we have developed certain principles, and the public trust doctrine is one such doctrine which we must always keep in mind,' Justice Karol said. He continued, 'But I would say this, if you were to see our report card in the last 75 years, or since the 1980s, what have we done? Have we done enough to protect the environment? My view is that a lot needs to be done, at all levels. And I would borrow an expression, that the solution to the problem now is grassroots solutions to an international problem. The way forward, according to me, is that we as individuals have to take up the causes pertaining to the environment.' Environmental issues could not be left to the courts for passing of verdicts, the legislature for making relevant laws or the executive for implementing them, he added. 'Each one of us, as responsible citizens, has to understand, become aware of, and ensure that we protect the environment for posterity.' He highlighted the two major issues -- air pollution and a polluted Yamuna -- Delhi has been grappling with required attention. 'I don't know how many of you have travelled in the Metro, or how many of you have gone beyond the Lutyens. But if you go to Noida or Trans-Yamuna, you would see what Yamuna really is. These are the two biggest challenges,' Justice Karol said. He outlined judiciary's 'zealous' role in protecting the environment. 'The reason is very clear. And it is that Mother Earth is not ours. We are there for her and we are there not only for her but also for posterity, for future generations, not only in India, but the world over,' the judge said. Justice Karol, as a result, urged each citizen to take up the cause of protecting the environment.
