New Delhi: The war of words between the Bar Council of India—apex regulator for the legal profession in the country—and the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) over the former’s new rules on entry of foreign lawyers has intensified, with the BCI warning action against SILF members for undermining the body’s authority.
Headed by Rajya Sabha BJP MP and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, the BCI accused SILF of being a “self-preserving institution,” working to protect the interest of select Indian law firms who have systematically monopolised corporate and arbitration work.
These firms have leveraged informal relationships with foreign clients and networks that have deprived small and mid-sized firms of valuable cross-border legal opportunities, BCI alleged in its statement released Sunday night.
SILF president Lalit Bhasin declined to comment on BCI’s latest missive.
Speaking to ThePrint, he said SILF is preparing its recommendations to modify the rules so that they are in conformity with the 2018 Supreme Court judgment that allowed entry of foreign lawyers in the country, but on a fly in-fly out basis.
The suggestions, he added, would be made keeping in mind the interests of Indian law firms, which he said have been totally sidelined by BCI while preparing the rules.
“We will respond to the BCI’s letter when we submit our suggestions to them, besides forwarding it to the central ministries of law and corporate affairs and the Prime Minister’s Office,” Bhasin said when asked for his response to the strongly-worded BCI statement.
Speaking to ThePrint, Ved Prakash Sharma, co-chairman, BCI, said that to address concerns expressed by certain Indian Law Firms, the Bar Council of India has constituted a committee under the chairmanship of Cyril Shroff “to engage with Stakeholders and ensure a balanced and constructive implementation of the rules”.
“This measured step will not only empower Indian legal professionals but also contribute meaningfully to the ease of doing business in India, attract FDI and support the vision of making India a global hub or international dispute resolution,” he added.
In May 2025, the BCI notified its fresh rules to allow foreign lawyers to work in India, restricting them to advisory roles or function in non-litigious matters involving foreign law, international law, or international commercial arbitration. The rules, BCI added, were based on “extensive consultations” and “positive feedback” from Indian law firms.
Their operation would be subject to regulatory oversight and a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Government of India. Besides, the foreign law firms would have to register themselves with the BCI. This condition has been added to ensure these firms remain accountable for discharging their services in India.
SILF has opposed the rules on the ground they contravene the 2018 Supreme Court judgement that, while allowing foreign law firms to work in India, directed the central government and BCI to regulate their operation. SILF claims the top court specifically ordered foreign lawyers should be granted permission to work on “fly in-fly out” basis.
But BCI rules flout this critical observation of the top court, argues SILF, adding that the rules are an overreach as they permit foreign law firms to partner with Indian firms to work here.
Also Read: Foreign lawyers and law firms set to enter India. But red tape and caveats await them
How matter reached Supreme Court
Entry of foreign lawyers in the country has always been a contentious issue and this is not the first time that the move has met with opposition. In the past too, the suggestion to let foreign advocates practice here invited sharp reaction from the local legal fraternity until the Supreme Court in 2018 declared they cannot establish offices in India or engage in any practice—either in litigation or in advisory role.
In 2000, lawyers in the Capital had taken to the streets while protesting against the Law Commission of India’s working paper that suggested changes in the Advocates Act, 1961 in order to open doors for foreign legal consultants to practice in India. The protests resulted in a lathi-charge on lawyers when they entered into a scuffle with Delhi Police personnel who tried stopping them from marching towards the Parliament.
Meanwhile, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had already issued licenses to foreign law firms, allowing them to open liaison offices in India. This was done under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
Questioning this move, non-profit body Lawyers Collective moved the Bombay High Court, arguing since the Advocates Act regulates the legal landscape in India, RBI lacked jurisdiction to issue such licenses.
In December 2009, the Bombay High Court quashed the licenses, terming them as invalid, while specifying what fell within the purview of “practice”. The court held all activities, including drafting documents, giving legal opinions, advising clients, and not just appearing in courts, would be defined as “practice”. It further held that even for providing non-litigious services, law graduates must be registered as lawyers under the Advocates Act with the state bar council.
A year later the Madras High Court took a divergent view and held though foreign law firms or lawyers cannot practice in India unless they comply with Advocates Act or the BCI rules, there was no prohibition on them from temporarily visiting India or flying-in or flying-out to advise on foreign law or international legal issues.
The judgment came on a petition filed by advocate A.K. Balaji, who moved the court against setting up of several foreign legal process outsourcing (LPO) firms. Balaji described these LPOs as foreign law firms, which were impermissible under the Advocates Act. The Madras HC also permitted foreign lawyers’ participation in arbitration proceedings in India, particularly under international commercial arbitration framework.
Aggrieved by the Madras HC’s view, BCI filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, which delivered an exhaustive judgment on the issue in 2018.
Bhasin quoted the 2018 judgment to emphasize his argument on the limitations imposed on foreign lawyers in India. “The judgment asked BCI to frame rules, which required deliberations with stakeholders. However, the body released rules without doing so.”
In 2023 as well, BCI had issued a set of rules. But they were challenged before the Delhi High Court. Bhasin pointed out there was no difference between the 2023 and 2025 rules and, therefore, BCI should have waited for the case’s outcome before proceeding further.
However, a senior BCI office-bearer, on condition of anonymity, told ThePrint that the pending challenge in the Delhi HC did not preclude the body from releasing a fresh set of rules because there was no stay on rules issued in 2023.
Bhasin also complained about the rule that lets foreign lawyers or law firms to register themselves with BCI, saying the body has expressly contravened with the Supreme Court judgment that never touched upon enrolment of foreign firms or advocates. “Under the Advocates Act only an Indian citizen can be registered as a lawyer,” he said.
Explaining the rationale behind the registration, the BCI member quoted above said: “Even if we are letting them operate on fly-in and fly-out basis, we have to make sure they are accountable for whatever services, though temporary, provided here.” The member clarified registration would not be open for all, but for selective areas, on reciprocity basis.
Bhasin countered that argument by saying that reciprocity in the legal field has been a lip-service so far.
“UK allows Indian advocates to set up a law practice there, subject to regulations, but it doesn’t translate into work because it’s extremely difficult to get a work-permit there,” he said, while expressing strong objection to BCI’s decision to allow foreign law firms to enter into a partnership.
“Law firms abroad are defined as big corporate houses. They are listed companies in which outsiders make investments. BCI is unaware of these realities,” he said.
According to him, BCI has also failed to address the multiple concerns raised by the legal community over the outdated Advocates Act, which does not allow lawyers to advertise themselves. “Since the foreign lawyers would not be amenable to this law they can easily advertise or promote their work in India, denying a level-playing field to the lawyers practicing here,” Bhasin added.
On why SILF set-up a committee under eminent corporate lawyer Shardul Shroff when BCI had already constituted a similar panel with Cyril Shroff as its head, Bhasin said, “Between 2023 and now the BCI did not consider it right to engage with us. Therefore, we thought it would be appropriate to collate suggestions by various law firms and give to the BCI.”
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: SC wants a relook at its own 2017 judgement on process of designating senior advocates