Amit Pandey
The Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, has generated significant debate and controversy within the legal community in India. The bill aims to modernize the legal profession by introducing a series of reforms that align with global best practices, improve legal education, and enhance professional standards. However, the bill has faced strong opposition from various quarters, particularly from those who believe it undermines the autonomy and independence of the Bar Council of India (BCI).
The central government’s decision to introduce amendments that allow for the nomination of members to the BCI by the government itself has raised concerns about the potential for increased government influence over the legal profession. Critics argue that this move could compromise the independence of the BCI, which has traditionally been an autonomous body responsible for regulating the legal profession and ensuring its integrity. The fear is that government-nominated members may be more susceptible to political pressure, thereby eroding the impartiality and objectivity of the BCI’s decisions.
In addition to concerns about government influence, the bill also proposes a ban on strikes and boycotts by advocates. While the bill allows for strikes that do not impede the administration of justice, many in the legal community see this as an infringement on their rights to protest and advocate for their interests. Strikes and boycotts have historically been used by advocates to draw attention to issues such as unfair practices, inadequate infrastructure, and the need for judicial reforms. The proposed ban is seen by many as a way to stifle dissent and weaken the collective bargaining power of advocates.
On the positive side, the bill includes provisions that aim to improve the quality of legal education and professional standards in India. By aligning with global best practices, the bill seeks to make the legal profession more transparent, accountable, and accessible. This includes measures to ensure that legal education institutions meet certain standards, provide better training for advocates, and promote continuous professional development. These reforms are expected to contribute to a more just and equitable legal system, benefiting both advocates and the public at large.
The central government has emphasized the importance of stakeholder feedback in the legislative process and has invited public comments on the draft bill. This move has been welcomed by many in the legal community, who see it as an opportunity to ensure that the final version of the bill addresses their concerns. The government has also highlighted its commitment to increasing funding for legal education and the legal profession, with significant budget allocations for the financial year 2025-26 aimed at supporting these reforms.
As the debate over the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, continues, it is clear that the proposed reforms present both opportunities and challenges for the legal profession in India. While the goal of modernizing and improving the profession is widely supported, concerns about government influence, the autonomy of the BCI, and advocates’ rights must be carefully addressed. The public consultation process will be crucial in ensuring that the final version of the bill strikes a balance between these competing interests and upholds the principles of justice and fairness that are fundamental to the legal profession.
A Delicate Equilibrium
The draft bill’s introduction of Section 35A aims to curb strikes and boycotts by legal professionals, categorizing such actions as misconduct subject to disciplinary action. While the provision allows for symbolic or one-day token strikes that do not disrupt court proceedings or violate clients’ rights, it raises concerns about the erosion of advocates’ autonomy. Critics argue that the ability to protest is fundamental to addressing grievances related to professional conduct, working conditions, or administrative matters. By restricting this right, the amendment could undermine the independence of the legal profession and its capacity to self-regulate.
Conversely, proponents contend that unchecked strikes can impede the administration of justice, causing delays and adversely affecting litigants. They argue that the amendment promotes a more professional environment, ensuring that the judiciary functions smoothly without interruptions. The challenge lies in striking a balance between maintaining advocates’ autonomy and ensuring the efficient operation of the judicial system.
A Double-Edged Sword
The draft amendment’s redefinition of a legal practitioner to include corporate lawyers and those working with foreign law firms signals a potential shift in India’s legal landscape. This move could pave the way for foreign law firms to establish a presence in India, introducing increased competition for domestic advocates. While this could lead to the adoption of global best practices and enhance the overall quality of legal services, it also raises concerns about the survival of smaller law practices and individual practitioners.
The entry of foreign firms may result in a concentration of high-profile cases among a few large firms, potentially marginalizing smaller practitioners. Additionally, there are apprehensions about jurisdictional challenges, as foreign firms might prefer arbitration or dispute resolution mechanisms outside Indian courts, potentially leading to a decline in domestic litigation and affecting the livelihood of local advocates.
The proposed amendments to the Advocates Act, 1961, have ignited intense debate among legal professionals, scholars, and policymakers. The inclusion of government-nominated members in the Bar Council of India (BCI) is particularly contentious, with many senior advocates and bar associations expressing serious apprehensions. Former BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra has warned that such a move could weaken the autonomy of the legal fraternity, allowing undue governmental influence in matters of professional conduct and regulation. He argues that the self-regulatory framework of the BCI, though not perfect, ensures independence from political interference, a fundamental aspect of a robust legal system.
Echoing these concerns, senior advocate and constitutional expert Fali S. Nariman emphasized that historically, legal institutions in India have maintained their independence to act as a check on executive overreach. He stated, “If the Bar Council is subjected to government control, the very essence of legal self-governance will be at risk, making lawyers subservient to the state rather than defenders of justice.”
However, proponents of the amendment see merit in government intervention. Former Supreme Court judge Justice (Retd.) A.K. Sikri noted that increased accountability could help curb corruption and favoritism within bar councils. He suggested that judicial reforms must be forward-looking, incorporating measures to improve professional ethics and efficiency in legal practice.
The entry of foreign law firms into India, another key provision of the amendment, has also received mixed reactions. While commercial law experts see it as an opportunity to enhance legal expertise and align India with global legal markets, others fear that small and mid-tier law firms could struggle to compete. Justice (Retd.) Markandey Katju warned, “If foreign law firms dominate, the legal profession in India could face economic disparities, leaving traditional practitioners vulnerable.”
Thus, while reforms are necessary, the government’s approach must ensure they do not compromise the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession.
An Overlooked Imperative
While the draft bill focuses on regulating the conduct of advocates and restructuring legal institutions, it is imperative to address the pressing issue of judicial infrastructure in India. Adequate infrastructure is crucial for the efficient delivery of justice, yet many courts across the country grapple with challenges such as inadequate facilities, shortage of staff, and outdated technology.
According to the Department of Justice, the primary responsibility for developing infrastructure for the subordinate judiciary rests with state governments, with the central government providing financial assistance under various schemes. Despite these efforts, a significant infrastructure gap persists, contributing to delays and a backlog of cases. A report by the Observer Research Foundation highlights that budgetary allocations for the judiciary have historically been insufficient, leading to a neglect of essential infrastructure needs.
To mitigate these challenges, there have been discussions about establishing a National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation to oversee and manage the development of judicial infrastructure across the country. Such an initiative could ensure a more uniform and efficient approach to addressing infrastructure deficits, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness of the judiciary.
The Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, signifies a critical juncture for the legal profession in India. While the bill’s objective of enhancing professionalism and aligning with global standards is commendable, it raises several important concerns that require careful consideration. Key among these is the potential erosion of the Bar Council of India’s autonomy, which could undermine the independence of the legal profession. The inclusion of government-nominated members in the BCI and restrictions on strikes and boycotts could lead to increased government influence and diminish advocates’ ability to advocate for their rights effectively.
Moreover, the bill’s provisions regarding the entry of foreign law firms into the Indian legal market have sparked debate about the potential impact on local legal practitioners. While the presence of foreign law firms could bring in global expertise and practices, there is a need to ensure that Indian advocates are not disadvantaged or marginalized in their own market. Additionally, the adequacy of judicial infrastructure remains a pressing issue. Despite the bill’s intentions, the lack of adequate resources and infrastructure could hinder the effective implementation of the proposed reforms.
To navigate these complexities, a comprehensive and inclusive dialogue among all stakeholders is essential. This includes legal professionals, academicians, policymakers, and the general public. Ensuring that the voices of those directly affected by the reforms are heard and considered will be crucial in crafting a balanced and effective bill. The goal should be to modernize the legal profession while preserving the core values of independence, fairness, and justice that are fundamental to India’s legal system.
while the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, offers an opportunity for significant advancements in the legal profession, it also necessitates a careful and nuanced approach. By fostering an open and inclusive dialogue and addressing the concerns of all stakeholders, the bill can achieve its objectives without compromising the integrity and autonomy of the legal profession in India.
( Author is Managing Editor of The Emerging World)
