Objections on The Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025
Prohibition of Strikes and Boycotts:
Section 35A prohibits advocates from calling for or participating in strikes that disrupt court operations. Violations may result in disciplinary action, although symbolic protests are allowed under certain conditions.
Government Oversight:
The Bill allows the central government to nominate up to three members to the Bar Council of India (BCI), which has raised concerns about potential governmental overreach into the legal profession’s autonomy.
Expanded Definitions:
The definition of a “legal practitioner” is broadened to include corporate lawyers and those working in various legal capacities outside traditional court settings.
Verification of Credentials:
The Bill mandates periodic verification of advocates’ credentials every five years to ensure compliance with standards set by the BCI.
The proposed amendments have faced backlash from various Bar Associations:
Lawyers argue that the Bill undermines their autonomy and the integrity of Bar Associations, labeling it “draconian” and “unjust”. They express concerns that prohibiting strikes could hinder their ability to advocate for better working conditions and professional standards.
The Advocate Amendment Bill is not only detrimental to the unity, integrity, and dignity of advocates but also draconian in nature. It will have a direct impact on the autonomy of all Bar Associations and State Bar Councils.
Objections on The Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025
The Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025 has sparked significant controversy and objections from various legal entities, particularly the Bar Council of India (BCI) and bar associations across Delhi. Here are five key objections raised against the proposed bill:
1. Compromise of Autonomy
The BCI argues that the bill undermines the autonomy and independence of the Bar by allowing the Central Government to nominate up to three members to the BCI. This provision is viewed as a move towards government regulation of a body that should be self-regulating, which could compromise its independence.
2. Prohibition on Strikes and Boycotts
A major point of contention is Section 35A, which prohibits advocates from calling for boycotts or abstaining from court work. This provision is perceived as draconian, limiting the ability of lawyers to protest against injustices or issues within the legal system. Critics argue that this restriction could stifle dissent and undermine the integrity of the legal profession.
3. Regulation of Foreign Law Firms
The bill proposes shifting the responsibility of regulating foreign law firms to the Central Government. The BCI contends that it is better equipped to handle this task and seeks amendments to allow it to frame regulations in consultation with the government instead of ceding control entirely.
4. Changes in Definitions and Membership Requirements
The proposed amendments include changes to definitions such as “legal practitioner” and “practice of law,” which have raised concerns about their implications for current legal practices. Additionally, a requirement for all advocates to register with bar associations has been criticized for its potential complexity, especially in jurisdictions with multiple associations.
5. Increased Disciplinary Powers
The BCI has expressed concerns over expanded disciplinary powers granted under the bill, which could allow for suspension or disbarment for professional misconduct. While accountability is necessary, there are fears that these powers could be misused to suppress dissent within the legal community, particularly regarding actions taken during strikes or protests.
These objections highlight a significant resistance within the legal community toward what many perceive as an attempt to centralize control over legal practices in India, potentially affecting the autonomy and integrity of legal professionals.
By: Ajay Gautam Advocate
