Why in the News?

On February 22, 2025, the Centre withdrew the contentious Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, stating that a revised version incorporating public feedback would be introduced.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Advocates Amendment Bill (Context, Key Provisions, Controversies, Future Prospects, etc.)

Introduction:

• The Union Ministry of Law and Justice withdrew the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, following strong opposition from the legal community.
• The Bill sought to amend the Advocates Act, 1961, which governs the legal profession in India.
• However, lawyers and the Bar Council of India (BCI) raised concerns that the amendments would undermine the independence of legal institutions, restrict protests, and give excessive power to the government.
• In response to nationwide strikes and legal representations, the government decided to withdraw the Bill and reconsider the proposed changes.

Key Provisions and Controversies:

• Government Influence Over the Bar Council of India (BCI)
  • The Bill proposed allowing the central government to nominate up to three members to the BCI.
  • Currently, the BCI is an independent body that regulates the legal profession in India.
  • Critics argued that government-appointed members could compromise the council’s autonomy and lead to political interference in legal matters.
  • Additionally, the proposed Section 49B would have empowered the central government to issue directions to the BCI, effectively giving it control over key decisions.
  • The BCI strongly opposed this provision, stating that it would erode the self-regulatory nature of the legal profession.
• Restrictions on Lawyers' Right to Protest
  • One of the most contentious provisions was Section 35A, which aimed to ban strikes and boycotts by lawyers.
  • It stated that any form of abstention from work, or obstruction in court functioning, would be considered misconduct, punishable under the Advocates Act.
  • Lawyers strongly opposed this provision, arguing that the right to protest is fundamental in a democracy.
  • They highlighted past cases where lawyers used strikes to oppose unjust laws and administrative issues. Critics pointed out that while excessive strikes could delay justice, an outright ban would be unjustified.
• Entry of Foreign Law Firms and Lawyers
  • The Bill sought to empower the central government to regulate the entry of foreign law firms and lawyers into India.
  • The Supreme Court had earlier ruled in Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji (2018) that foreign lawyers could offer legal advice on a temporary basis but could not practice law in India.
  • In 2023, the BCI introduced rules allowing foreign law firms to operate in areas such as international arbitration, but they remained barred from court litigation.
  • The Bill would have transferred this regulatory power from the BCI to the government, raising concerns about its impact on Indian lawyers.
• Expanded Definition of 'Legal Practitioner'
  • The Bill proposed broadening the definition of ‘legal practitioner’ to include corporate lawyers and lawyers associated with foreign law firms.
  • Traditionally, this definition only included practicing advocates, pleaders, and revenue agents. The BCI opposed this move, arguing that it would dilute professional standards and create legal ambiguities.
• New Misconduct Provisions and Penalties
  • The Bill introduced additional provisions on lawyer misconduct, including:
    • Allowing clients to file misconduct complaints against lawyers if they faced financial loss due to legal proceedings.
    • Imposing monetary fines of up to ₹3 lakh on advocates found guilty of misconduct.
    • Allowing state bar councils to impose fines of ₹50,000 on clients who file frivolous complaints.
    • Lawyers argued that holding them financially liable for client losses was unfair, as legal outcomes depend on judicial decisions, not just advocacy.

Future Prospects and The Way Forward:

• While the Bill has been withdrawn, the government has stated that it will introduce a revised draft after consultations with stakeholders. Key areas for reconsideration include:
  • Ensuring the BCI remains independent and self-regulated.
  • Balancing the right to protest with judicial efficiency.
  • Revisiting foreign law firm regulations in consultation with legal bodies.
  • Refining the definition of legal practitioners to avoid ambiguity.
• Legal experts suggest that future amendments should focus on improving legal education, streamlining disciplinary mechanisms, and enhancing access to justice while maintaining the autonomy of the legal profession.

Conclusion:

The withdrawal of the Advocates (Amendment) Bill highlights the importance of protecting the independence of the legal profession.

While legal reforms are necessary, they must be framed in consultation with legal stakeholders to ensure they strengthen, rather than weaken, the judiciary.

The government’s decision to reconsider the Bill reflects a recognition of these concerns. Future discussions must aim for a balanced approach that upholds legal ethics while promoting judicial efficiency.