On Friday, the Delhi High Court sent notices to the Bar Council of India (BCI), the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, and the Ministry of Home Affairs in response to a petition that contests the BCI's ruling permitting foreign law firms to operate in India.

After a thorough hearing of the petitioners and the bar body, a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora issued notices to both the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Central government.

During the hearing, the Court also raised a pertinent question regarding how the Bar Council of India (BCI) could disregard the 2018 apex court judgment in the AK Balaji case. This ruling clearly stated that foreign law firms with foreign lawyers are prohibited from establishing offices in India.

Advocates Narendra Sharma, Arvind Kumar Bajpai, Siddharth Srivastav, Ekta Mehta, Arvind Kumar, Sanjeev Sareen, Harish Kumar Sharma, and Deepak Sharma jointly filed a plea contesting the notification issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI) on March 10, 2023.

According to their plea, the notification issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI) permits foreign lawyers to be registered in India and practice law in non-litigious matters. However, the petitioners argue that the BCI lacks the authority or power under the Advocates Act of 1961 to make such provisions.

The petitioners contended that the legal profession cannot "be taken over by foreign market forces to defeat the ends of justice nor justice dispensation system be subjugated to such forces”.

The argument presented contends that the Bar Council of India's decision also breaches the 'treaty of reciprocation' due to the absence of reciprocity between India and other nations whose law firms will now have the opportunity to operate in India. This lack of reciprocity is deemed detrimental to the interests of young lawyers practicing in India.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Tiku, representing the petitioners, argued that the Bar Council of India, under the guise of regulating the legal profession, cannot exceed the bounds set by the Advocates Act.

"Foreign firms have been allowed to open law offices. The Advocates Act does not permit it. You may amend the law, but in exercise in garb of regulation, you cannot do something that the Act does not permit," Tiku said.

He emphasized that there should be no differentiation between litigation and non-litigation aspects of law practice.

"Unless you are enrolled in State roll, you cannot practice. You may call it litigation or non-litigation," Tiku contended.

It was further pointed out that only Indian citizens are allowed to enroll as lawyers in India.

Advocate Preet Pal Singh, representing the Bar Council of India (BCI), asserted that the BCI's notification clearly outlines what is permissible under its regulations. However, the Court challenged Singh regarding how the BCI could disregard the apex court judgment in the AK Balaji case.

Following the questioning, the Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to submit its response and scheduled further deliberation on the matter for April 24th.