Context:
The Centre withdrew the Bill on February 22, declaring that it needed to have public consultation and present a new draft of the same for reintroduction. The Bar Council of India (BCI) opposed the Bill vehemently, asserting that it jeopardizes the bar’s autonomy and independence.
Key Provisions & Impasse
Strike & Boycott by Lawyers Banned
- Section 35 A
- Forbade advocates and bar associations from striking or boycotting courts, making it such violations would constitute misconduct and cause disciplinary proceedings to ensue.
- Concerns
- Opponents maintain that strikes are a legitimate instrument for objection, especially in situations of state abuse.
Government Control Over BCI Widened
- Three government nominees were proposed in the BCI other than the Attorney General and Solicitor General.
- Section 49B
- Dictated that the Central Government could issue binding directions to the BCI.
- Concerns
- This threatens to infringe upon judicial independence and decrease institutional autonomy of the legal fraternity.
BCI’s Powers Greatly Enhanced
- In Section 45B, the BCI was permitted to address disciplinary complaints at a national scale and was empowered to terminate the practice of lawyers at its mere discretion.
- Section 48B endowed the BCI with powers to abrogate the State bar councils when they are unable to perform their functions in a satisfactory manner.
- Concerns
- Critics argue that this actually goes against the federal structure of legal regulations.
Recognition of Corporate Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms
- The extended definition of “legal practitioner” would include in house counsel and foreign lawyers.
- Gave the Centre the power to regulate the entry of foreign law firms into India.
- Concerns
- Ambiguities concerning in house counsel having right of audience in courts and whether their advice would be covered by legal privilege.
Way Forward
- The withdrawal gives way to further consultations with bar associations, High Courts, and legal professionals.
- Any future amendments should strike a balance between reforming provisions and maintaining judicial independence and bar autonomy.
The Bill sought to create reforms for the legal profession and was heavily criticized for attempting to undermine bar autonomy, government overreach, and unclear provisions for corporate lawyers.
