Faced with outrage, law ministry to revise Advocates (Amendment) Bill

The ministry of law and justice has decided to revise the Advocates (Amendment) Bill 2025, which proposes changes to the Advocates Act. A fresh public consultation will now be held regarding the amendments. This decision was communicated to the Bar Council of India (BCI) on Saturday, 22 February.

This announcement comes in response to widespread protests from bar associations and lawyers nationwide against the current version of the Bill. The ministry indicated in its communication that, due to the numerous concerns raised, the consultation process would be completed. It also mentioned that the draft Bill would be updated based on the feedback received before being reissued for further consultation with stakeholders.

In light of this situation, the BCI has called on lawyers and bar associations to halt any ongoing protests and strikes. The BCI released a statement noting that Union law minister Arjun Meghwal had promised that all contentious issues would be thoroughly examined before finalizing the Bill. "Given the recent developments and the government's position, the Bar Council of India requests all Bar Associations that had called for abstention to resume court activities starting Monday, 24th February 2025," the statement said.

The contentious Bill was made available for public consultation on 13 February through the department of legal affairs website. It has encountered considerable opposition and protests from the legal community, leading the BCI to express its concerns to the law ministry, which has now agreed to reassess the amendments.

The proposed Bill suggests significant reforms to the Advocates Act of 1961. One of the most notable changes is the expanded definition of 'legal practitioner', which would encompass legal professionals beyond just practising advocates. The Bill also revises the definition of 'law graduate' and introduces new provisions related to experience certification and verification, with the aim of modernising the profession and enhancing transparency and accountability.

Under Section 2(i), the Bill introduces a provision on experience certificates for legal practitioners. It specifies that certificates issued by state bar councils, bar associations, courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial forums, and even private and public organisations (such as law firms and corporate entities) will serve as proof of legal practice.

The Bill also revises the definition of 'law graduate' in section 2(h) to include individuals with a three-year or five-year bachelor's degree in law, or a degree of any other prescribed duration, from a Centre of Legal Education or university recognised by the BCI.

Last week, the BCI raised serious concerns about the draft Bill, warning of its potential negative impact on the legal profession and the autonomy of the bar council. In a letter to the ministry, BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra stated that though council and ministry officials had discussed the draft Bill and reached an “apparent consensus” on key issues, the final draft deviated from the terms that had been agreed upon.

Mishra, who is also a BJP Rajya Sabha MP, expressed his dismay: “This draft undermines the very concept of autonomy and independence of the Bar. Lawyers across the country are agitated, and protests are inevitable. If these draconian provisions are not amended or removed immediately, protests will intensify. The lawyers of Delhi District Courts have already gone on strike, and this protest is likely to spread nationwide unless the Ministry provides positive assurance soon.”

The BCI's official statement emphasised that the draft Bill contained several provisions that required immediate rectification. Despite multiple rounds of discussions with the law secretary and chief controller of accounts, the final draft included “unilateral insertions” that departed from the previously agreed terms.

The BCI had expressed shock at the significant changes made by ministry officials in the published draft, warning that it could erode the autonomy of the Bar.

Key concerns raised by the BCI included:

· Changes to the enrolment eligibility and fee structure (section 24), which would allow the Central government to determine the fees, instead of the BCI, leading to potential confusion and arbitrary decisions

· A diluted definition of 'legal practitioner', which would include all individuals involved in legal practice, regardless of regulation, potentially allowing foreign legal entities to operate unregulated

· The omission of a clear definition of the 'practice of law', which had been proposed by the BCI to include both litigious and non-litigious work

· Proposals to remove advocates from the state roll (section 24B) if convicted of offences punishable by three years or more in prison. The BCI suggested increasing this threshold to seven years to avoid undue harshness

· The omission of welfare provisions, which had been proposed by the BCI to offer statutory protections against violence, harassment, and malicious prosecution, as well as provisions for pensions, insurance, and healthcare for advocates

· The treatment of strikes and boycotts as misconduct under the draft Bill, which the BCI argued was unnecessary, given that courts can already address disruptions under the Contempt of Courts Act

· An amendment to section 48B (2), which sought to empower a committee led by a former high court judge and senior advocates to intervene when a state bar council is unable to function. The BCI deemed this unnecessary and requested its removal

· A proposed penalty for state bar councils and disciplinary committees for failing to resolve complaints within two years (section 36B(3)), which the BCI considered inappropriate for bodies performing quasi-judicial functions

· The replacement of 'rules' with 'regulations', which the BCI argued would weaken its authority