Delhi HC Questions BCI’s Foreign Law Firm Rules as Council Says No CJI or Centre Approval Needed [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday took sharp exception to the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) handling of its 2022 framework governing foreign lawyers and foreign law firms, after the BCI maintained that it did not require approval from either the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or the Central government before issuing the rules.

Appearing before the Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, counsel for the BCI stated that the Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India Rules, 2022 were validly framed and that: “We don’t need the approval… allow me to file a counter and I will justify.”

The submission came in response to Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam’s contention that the BCI had produced no proof of mandatory approvals under Section 49(1)(c) and (e) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

The submissions were made during the hearing of petitions filed by Dentons Link Legal and CMS IndusLaw, challenging both the BCI Rules and the show-cause notices issued to them in August over alleged unauthorised collaborations with foreign law firms.

Dentons Link Legal and IndusLaw raised concerns over the fundamental statutory and constitutional challenges to the BCI framework. IndusLaw argues that Section 49 of the Advocates Act does not empower the BCI to regulate foreign lawyers at all, rendering the 2022 Rules ultra vires. Dentons Link Legal contends that, without the mandatory prior approval of the CJI or the Central government, the Rules cannot stand.

Reiterating its earlier concerns, the Bench remarked that the Rules themselves appeared structurally unsound - primarily regarding provisions enabling major penalties against law firms based solely on preliminary inquiries. The Court bluntly observed that the regulatory framework was “a mess” and advised the BCI to consider amending it.

When the BCI informed the bench that a consultation process was underway with suggestions being examined, the Court responded that drafting clarity was essential for a national regulator: “Please frame the rules properly. You are the Bar Council after all.”

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

Meanwhile, the Court extended the interim protection granted earlier, restraining the BCI from taking any final decision in the ongoing proceedings against the petitioners. “Don’t take the final decision,” the Bench reiterated, while allowing the BCI time of two weeks to file its counter-affidavit.

Both petitions also highlight that while the BCI Rules regulate foreign law firms in detail, they do not define what constitutes an “Indian law firm,” creating ambiguity at the heart of enforcement.

The Bench has previously expressed serious reservations over BCI’s preliminary inquiry powers, warning that wielding punitive authority without a clear evidentiary foundation could “castigate” firms without due process. Questions were also raised earlier regarding a BCI press release announcing action against the foreign firms, which was subsequently withdrawn following the directions by the Court.

The matter will now be taken up in January, with the interim restraint on final action continuing.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates