Latest news with #AdvocatesAct
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- General
- The Hindu
Bar Council of Kerala issues show-cause notice to newly enrolled lawyer
The Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) on Wednesday issued show-cause notice to a young lawyer who was enrolled four days ago, for circulating a short video on social media on his enrolment ceremony which shows an official vehicle of a High Court judge. In the show-cause notice issued to Mohammed Fayiz from Chavakkad, Thrissur, the BCK secretary said that the video amounted to advertising and soliciting, and demeaning the dignity of the judiciary. The use of the video of the judge's vehicle is ill-motivated and malicious. The BCK is prima facie of the view that the act amounts to misconduct, and that he is liable to be proceeded against under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Lawyers don't need to wear black coats in summer: Delhi Bar Association
In a major relief to lawyers practising in the Capital amidst the scorching heat, the Delhi Bar Association (DBA) has decided that advocates will be exempt from wearing black coats, their usual dress code, from May 16 to September 30. Rules framed under Section 49(1)(gg) of the Advocates Act, 1961, prescribe a dress code for all practising advocates. This comprises a black buttoned-up coat, chapkan, achkan (a knee-length upper garment with long sleeves, side slits and a standing collar), black sherwani and white bands with advocate's gown for men advocates. Women advocates have to wear a black and full or half-sleeve jacket or blouse, white collar, stiff or soft, and white bands with advocates' gowns or sarees and long skirts (white or black without any design). 'All the members are hereby informed that advocates are exempted from wearing a black coat during summer (from May 16 to September 30) as per amendment in rules under Section 49(1)(gg) of the Advocates Act,1961,' DBA said in a circular dated May 24. 'Therefore, the members are at liberty to appear in the Courts subordinate to the Delhi High Court without wearing a black coat… The members are, however, advised to adhere to other rules of the dress code…,' the circular issued by Vikas Goyal, Secretary, DBA, said. DBA also said the district and sessions judges of various court complexes across Delhi have been informed of this decision. 'This is a very good step. The weather is very erratic and humid. In June, the heat will be way worse. This should be done by all Bar Associations and Councils across North India,' said Advocate Dhir Singh Kasana, former Saket Bar Association secretary. 'Indian district courts lack proper infrastructure in terms of fans, air conditioners, unhygienic washrooms, and sitting rooms, coupled with rising temperatures, it has become a daily physical and mental challenge for the advocates to wear black coats during court hours, especially in summer…This move is a welcome step towards the welfare of the advocates practising at district courts,' Advocate Paras Jain, who practices in Delhi, said. On February 27 this year, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) issued a circular stating that advocates need not wear black coats from March 1 to June 30 every year. Similarly, Bhopal's Bar Council gave a similar exemption to lawyers from April 15 to July 15, 2025.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Bar Council of India Opens Doors to Foreign Law Firms: Experts Demand Regulatory Clarity, ET LegalWorld
The Bar Council of India (BCI) has officially formalized the decision to open the Indian legal market to foreign law firms, a move that was first announced two years ago. While the step marks a significant milestone in the liberalization of the legal services sector, prominent legal expert Lalit Bhasin, President SILF (Society of Indian Law Firms) has called for caution, emphasizing the urgent need to amend the Advocates Act to provide a clear, legal framework for foreign lawyers. Speaking to ETLegalworld, Bhasin highlighted that India's approach to allowing foreign law firms remains cautious and structured, drawing parallels to regulated markets such as the UK and Singapore. 'India is not lagging behind,' he said, 'but unlike some countries where foreign firms face stringent conditions or local partnerships, India must ensure a fair and lawful system.' Advt Advt Bhasin criticized the Bar Council's recent move to issue regulations permitting foreign lawyers before the necessary legislative amendments, calling this approach 'putting the cart before the horse.' He warned that without amending the Advocates Act, these regulations risk being unenforceable and could damage India's legal veteran lawyer explained that while the legal profession initially opposed foreign entry in the 1990s due to concerns about competitiveness, by 2014 Indian firms had matured and welcomed foreign collaboration — provided there was a proper regulatory Supreme Court in 2018 reinforced that foreign lawyers cannot practice law in India without legislative backing. Despite this clarity, neither the government nor the BCI has taken decisive steps to amend the law. Instead, recent regulatory efforts appear to have been driven by pressures related to trade talks with the UK, according to Bhasin.'Reciprocity must be real,' Bhasin stressed, noting that while India allows foreign firms under conditions, the UK has yet to issue work permits to Indian law firms. He called for a 'level playing field' and urged the BCI to act more responsibly to safeguard the interests of India's over 1.2 million move to formally allow foreign law firms comes amid growing globalization of legal services and increasing demand for cross-border expertise. However, Bhasin insists that any policy should balance openness with protecting domestic legal talent and the rule of law. By , ETLegalWorld Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App
The Hindu
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
India warms to foreign law firms, but legal concerns simmer
In the winter of February 2000, a sea of black coats surged towards Parliament House. Braving water cannons, tear gas, and lathi charges, over 40,000 lawyers staged an intense protest aimed at blocking the entry of foreign law firms and lawyers into the Indian legal system. A quarter of a century later, the landscape has shifted dramatically. On May 14, 2025, the Bar Council of India (BCI) — the regulatory authority for the legal profession — formally notified a set of rules permitting foreign law firms and lawyers to practice in India. Their role, however, is restricted: they may operate only in non-litigious matters, limited to foreign and international law, and solely on a reciprocal basis. A past steeped in resistance The nationwide agitation 25 years ago was triggered by the Law Commission of India's Working Paper, which proposed amendments to the Advocates Act, 1961, to allow foreign legal consultants to practice in India. 'The entire legal fraternity stood united,' recalled advocate and former Delhi Bar Association president Rajiv Khosla, who had led the lawyers' march and lost an eye in a scuffle with the police. The Supreme Court later reinforced this sentiment in March 2018 when it ruled that foreign law firms and foreign lawyers could not practise law in the country either on the litigation or non-litigation side. One of the central arguments then was reciprocity, given that Indian advocates were not allowed to practice in the U.K., U.S.A., Australia, and other foreign nations without complying with onerous restrictions such as qualifying tests, proof of experience, and work permits. The turnaround In March 2023, the BCI floated a notification permitting foreign lawyers to function in non-litigious areas only. Although that notification was challenged in the Delhi High Court, and remains under judicial consideration, the latest iteration in May 2025 has cemented the policy shift. Lalit Bhasin, chairman of the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), who was once a vocal opponent of foreign law firms entering India, reflected on the shift in tone: 'We welcome them. They can learn from us, we can learn from them. It would be a good opening for our young lawyers also who can work with them.' Still, he expressed concerns that the latest BCI notification might contravene the Supreme Court's 2018 rulings. Mr. Bhasin said the BCI's 2023 notification was kept in abeyance, but the current development amounts to 'old wine in a new bottle.' 'Our view is, why can't the Parliament just amend the law, that is, the Advocates Act, giving liberty to foreign lawyers to come to India to practice? Because the existing law does not permit it,' Mr. Bhasin stressed. 'Encouraging global integration' Haigreve Khaitan, Senior Partner at Khaitan & Co, called the move 'a positive step'. He said, 'This will result in increased knowledge sharing, innovation, and faster adoption of global best practices. Regulatory reforms must now ensure a level playing field.' 'The amendment's spirit is to safeguard domestic litigation while encouraging global integration,' said Abhishek Prasad, founder of his eponymous chambers. It also creates new opportunities for Indian lawyers and law firms through the dual registration provision, which allows them to practice foreign and international law without relinquishing their right to practice Indian law, he added. Shailendera Singh, partner at GnS Legal, added a pragmatic note: 'The amended Rules do not specify if foreign lawyers are restricted in appearing in international arbitration only when the applicable law is Indian law, making it possible for them to appear so long as one of the parties is a foreign party.' 'Reciprocity is an illusion' Former Bar Council of Delhi chairman K.C. Mittal raised questions about reciprocity. 'The whole action is against the Advocates Act, as the same requires amendments in the basic Act. The claim of reciprocity is illusionary. Reciprocal means our law degree and enrolments certifies are recognised by them and any lawyer from India can go, appear and argue but it's not so,' he said. Mr. Khosla echoed these concerns. 'So far, the BCI hasn't specified which countries have extended reciprocal access to Indian lawyers. Other countries aren't accepting us, yet we're moving ahead — I don't understand why,' he said.
Time of India
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC warns against private citizens representing litigants, cites ethical & legal risks
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has made it clear that allowing a private citizen to represent a relief-seeker before the court can prove to be unethical at multiple levels. "First and foremost, placing the fate of a person's life into the untrained hands of an individual could yield immutable consequences. In fact, the same would amount to placing a wager, with a human life at stake," the HC has held. The HC has further observed that in such a situation, advocates are trained professionals who can be held accountable for their conduct as they are also liable for disciplinary actions for any professional misconduct. The legal training imparted to them enables them to represent their client in the best possible manner. Furthermore, they are required to abide by a certain code of ethics as they are not just representing their client but are also duty bound to assist the court in arriving at a correct decision, the HC has held. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar has passed the orders while dismissing a petition filed by Manjeet Singh seeking bail in a drug case registered against him in Jalandhar. During the hearing of the case, one Pardeep Kumar appeared in person on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that he, being a public-spirited individual, has been authorised by the mother of the petitioner to represent him. He contended that according to the rules framed by the HC under Section 46-A of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, he is eligible to file a petition as he falls within the definition of a 'petition writer.' However, rejecting his plea, Justice Brar observed that a bare perusal of the abovementioned provisions indicates that by default, only advocates can appear before the court and practise law. The court further observed that section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 does provide for private citizens to appear before the court, however, the same is qualified by a prior permission from the court. "The present petition pertains to grant of regular bail to the petitioner. The decision of the same would have direct implications on the liberty of the petitioner, therefore, he deserves to be represented by a domain expert, who will be held accountable for any laxity on his part. With that in view, this court is not satisfied with the arguments put forth by Pardeep Kumar, to be allowed to represent the petitioner. As a matter of fact, he has not even been engaged by the petitioner himself but has appeared at the request of his mother. Therefore, it cannot be reasonably said that the petitioner has consented to being represented by him, observed the judge while dismissing the plea. The bench, however, has directed the District Legal Services Authority, Jalandhar, to facilitate filing of a fresh petition for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner.
