Introduction:

The Delhi High Court recently issued notice on a plea challenging the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) notification from last year, permitting the entry of foreign law firms and lawyers in India. The petition, filed by lawyers enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, contends that the notification is ultra vires the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. This summary provides an overview of the arguments presented by both parties and the court’s response.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioners argued that the BCI’s notification contradicts the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji & Ors (2015), which explicitly stated that foreign law firms or lawyers cannot practice in India. Senior Advocate Rajesh Tikku, representing the petitioners, emphasized that the BCI lacks the authority to allow entry for foreign lawyers not enrolled under the Advocates Act. He asserted that the notification goes against established statutes and creates a distinct class without proper legal backing. On the other hand, BCI’s counsel, Advocate Preet Pal Singh, highlighted the controlled and limited nature of the entry for foreign lawyers, emphasizing that their ethics would be governed by the BCI.

Court’s Judgement:

The Delhi High Court, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, issued notice on the plea and sought responses from the BCI and the Union Government. The matter is scheduled for further hearing in April. The court did not provide an interim stay on the notification. The arguments centered around the interpretation of the Advocates Act, with the petitioners asserting that the BCI’s authority does not extend to permitting the entry of foreign lawyers, especially when the Supreme Court’s precedent prohibits such practice.