The recent introduction and withdrawal of the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025 came as a bitter pill for the government. It had several provisions that raised concerns within the legal community on the potential curtailment of advocates’ freedoms and the autonomy of legal institutions. The draft bill was also seen as an attempt to erode the freedom of the judiciary. Let's examine the proposed amendments.
Govt nominees in BCI
One of the most contentious provisions was the introduction of Section 4(1)(d), which permits the Central government to nominate up to three members to the Bar Council of India (BCI). The BCI opposed it, arguing that it has historically functioned as a democratically elected body representing 27 lakh advocates. Since government appointees would seriously alter the independent character of the legal profession, the BCI rightly requested the complete deletion of the provision.
Foreign lawyer regulation
The draft bill proposed transferring the regulatory authority over foreign lawyers and law firms from the BCI to the Central government. It aimed to override BCI's 2022 regulations, which had established a framework for foreign legal entities, requiring BCI oversight with Central government approval. The legal fraternity feels that the Centre taking over the oversight role could lead to uncertainty regarding compliance and regulatory enforcement.
Govt directions to BCI
Section 49B of the proposed bill grants the Central government the power to issue binding directions to the BCI. Such a provision is unprecedented and could allow government intervention in the Bar Council's decisions, affecting disciplinary proceedings, enrollment policies, and legal education governance. The BCI demanded the deletion of this section.
Enrollment, eligibility and fees
The draft bill modified Section 24 by removing the fixed enrollment fee structure and transferring the power to determine fees to the Central government. This could lead to arbitrary fee changes, creating uncertainty for new law graduates seeking enrollment. The BCI rightly requested that the original enrollment fee provisions be restored.
Definition of “legal practitioner”
The BCI had proposed a definition for the term “legal practitioner” under Section 2(i) to ensure that all legal professionals, including those engaged in corporate advisory roles or tribunals, fall within the purview of the Advocates Act. However, the government’s draft alters this definition, which the BCI argued could lead to unregulated legal practice by non-lawyers. The Council sought the reinstatement of its originally proposed definition.
Automatic disqualification of advocates facing conviction
Under Section 24B, the bill mandates the automatic removal of an advocate’s name from a state's rolls if convicted of an offence with a sentence of three or more years. The BCI opposed it, arguing that the threshold should be raised to seven years. Another objectionable provision prohibits advocates facing trial from contesting Bar Council elections. It violates the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
Criminalisation of strikes and boycotts
The bill criminalises strikes and boycotts by advocates, classifying them as misconduct under Section 26(c) and (d). Advocates have historically used strikes to protest judicial inefficiencies and legal system challenges. The existing laws, such as the Contempt of Courts Act, already address disruptions to court proceedings.
Welfare provisions for lawyers axed
The bill omits key welfare provisions related to advocate protection laws, pension schemes and healthcare benefits. The BCI had earlier proposed a new chapter on “Advocates’ Protection and Rights”, which has not been included in the final draft. It is no secret that lawyers face increasing security threats. Removing welfare protections could negatively impact the profession.
The intent and meaning of the bill
While the government claimed that the bill aimed to modernise legal practice, it can be argued that the intent was to centralise power, suppress dissent, and weaken the profession's ability to challenge the state. The expansion of the legal profession’s definition was portrayed as a progressive measure, but in reality, it allowed the entry of politically and corporate-connected individuals into legal advocacy, potentially compromising judicial integrity.
Similarly, the ban on strikes was justified as a way to prevent disruptions in the judicial process, but in reality, it was a strategy to curb legal resistance against government policies.
Additionally, the bill raised serious concerns about the principle of separation of powers. By introducing provisions that allow increased executive influence over the legal profession, the amendment indirectly encroaches upon judicial independence. A judiciary that is not free from external pressures, particularly those exerted by the executive, risks becoming an instrument of the state rather than an impartial arbiter of justice. This not only weakens the checks and balances essential for a functioning democracy but also threatens the very essence of the rule of law. Any attempt to dilute judicial autonomy strikes at the heart of the basic structure doctrine, which safeguards the independence of the judiciary as a non-negotiable pillar of Indian democracy.
Legal fraternity upset
Being part of WhatsApp groups of many lawyer communities, I could feel the emotion and anger rising against the amendments. It was not so strong in the Supreme Court but in the district courts there was simmering tension and the anger was palpable. Soon it was spreading like wildfire. District courts nationwide were the first to go on a strike and the Delhi High Court was slated to follow suit. Realising the gravity of the situation, the government was forced to withdraw the bill.
The bill triggered nationwide protests by lawyers, with many boycotting court proceedings, holding rallies, and demanding its repeal. The BCI, too, refused to negotiate with the government unless the bill was scrapped in its entirety. The legal community remained uncompromising in its opposition. While the judiciary did not openly oppose the bill, many senior judges and retired justices reportedly expressed concerns over the government's attempt to control the legal profession.
Political backlash
The timing of the bill was also a factor. With upcoming elections in Bihar, Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, the government could not afford to antagonise the legal fraternity, which holds significant influence in the political and judicial landscape. The attempt to curtail professional independence was seen as a move against democratic values, which could have damaged India’s global reputation in legal and human rights circles.
The bill aimed at a complete overhaul of the law governing advocates. An exercise of such magnitude ought to have had wider public consultation but that didn't happen. Finally, it had to be withdrawn.
(The author is a member of the Rajya Sabha and Supreme Court lawyer)