The legal profession in India has witnessed significant developments recently, with the Bar Council of India (BCI), the country’s apex regulatory authority for lawyers, approving the entry of foreign law firms and lawyers to practice within India.
In 2009, the Lawyers Collective challenged Section 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which limits legal practice in India exclusively to lawyers registered with the BCI. The courts upheld this provision, thereby prohibiting foreign lawyers and firms from practicing or establishing offices in India. This position was reaffirmed in Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji (2012), a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018, which nevertheless allowed foreign lawyers to provide legal advice on a limited “fly-in and fly-out” basis. The Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022 is the outcome of a long debate and recommendation by the SC in matters related to the practice of foreign lawyers and foreign law firms in India.
The Bar Council of India’s 2022 rules governing the entry of foreign lawyers and law firms into India impose a highly restrictive regulatory framework. The rules stipulate extensive registration requirements, including documentary evidence of legal qualifications, reciprocity, and strict compliance declarations. Additionally, the prescribed fee structure is notably burdensome:
- Registration fee: USD 15,000 (individual), USD 25,000 (firm);
- Renewal fee (every five years): USD 8,000 (individual), USD 15,000 (firm);
- Fly-in/fly-out fee: USD 3,000 per declaration (individual), USD 6,000 per declaration (firm);
- Refundable security deposit: USD 10,000 (individual), USD 30,000 (firm);
- Non-refundable processing fee: USD 2,000 (individual), USD 5,000 (firm).
These high financial thresholds, coupled with the limitation of practice to non-litigious matters only, may disincentivize genuine legal engagement from foreign entities. Furthermore, the categorical prohibition against maintaining any office, infrastructure, or regular presence in India renders effective legal service delivery impractical. Given that essential legal functions such as documentation, client interaction, and transactional support require some degree of physical or institutional presence, this restriction is arguably incompatible with the functional realities of legal practice.
The rules also empower the Bar Council to impose penalties and revoke registration, introducing an additional layer of uncertainty and potential deterrence. While the protectionist rationale underpinning the framework is understandable, a more balanced and facilitative approach, one that safeguards domestic interests while fostering reciprocal international cooperation, would better align with India’s evolving role in global legal and commercial ecosystems.
These rules have been welcomed by many legal practitioners for clarifying the scope of foreign law firms’ practice in India. They are expected to boost foreign direct investment and help establish India as a hub for commercial arbitration. Limited entry of foreign firms is likely to promote competition, knowledge exchange, and a better understanding of different legal systems. Additionally, foreign firms may introduce advanced technologies like AI, while dual registration could create new business opportunities for Indian lawyers and firms.