Lawyer Writes To BCI Against Foreign Lawyers’ And Law Firms' Entry Rules, Says It Will Threaten Sovereignty

A Delhi-based lawyer has written a representation to the Bar Council of India and Union Ministry of Law and Justice against the recently notified Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022.

Advocate Pawan Prakash Pathak has submitted that the power to recognize foreign degree qualification is not within the purview of the BCI alone and that the legislature is competent to enact a law on the said issue in consultation with the lawyers’ body.

Contending that the Rule is arbitrary and creates a class within a class of advocates thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the representation reads:

“Whereas the Power to make Rules by BCI under Chapter II is limited to the disciplinary committee and allied powers but the qualification for enrolment of foreign advocates/ law firm, even the BCI vs AK Balaji judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not consent the same.”

Pathak has further said that the BCI has not provided any ratio to clarify as to what number of registration of foreign lawyers will outnumber the Indian lawyers in non-litigation practice.

“Also, in reference to the mode of registration of application under section 4(ix) of the rules (foreign law firm/ advocate registration) the BCI is not competent to confer upon itself the power to investigate the affidavit sworn in a foreign land and followed by investigating power to verify the veracity and hence this clause is also arbitrary,” the representation reads.

It adds, “Whereas Section 9( iii) allows indirect entry into litigious matters through the appointment of the Indian Advocates and hence this will entail the foreign law firms expanding there trade and practise in India vide Indian lawyers and therefore this will also be a threat to Indian Sovereignty because then there control will increase due to indirect channel entry in litigation.”

Pathak has asked BCI to consider his representation and respond to it within 15 days, failing which he will take an “alternative course of action” as per law.

“…there is a fundamental flaw with this policy and raises the question which may be considered by this representation and then decision may be taken following due procedure as to amend the policy or scrap it or re-draft the policy with due representations & consultation from our fraternity,” Pathak has written.

The questions raised in the representation are whether BCI maintains any roll of advocates who are directly registered with it and not the State Bar Councils and if the power to enrol foreign advocate and law firms is outside the purview of powers and functions of BCI.

Click Here To Read Representation