A committee was constituted by the Bar Council of India in its General Council meeting held on 12 June 2025 to examine the issue of permitting foreign lawyers and foreign law firms to practice in India. The committee, comprising senior members of the legal profession, submitted its report to the Bar Council of India on 22 September 2025, and no remuneration was paid to its members. In response to an RTI application, the Bar Council declined to disclose the report or the internal deliberations, citing that the information is not in the public domain, is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and is still under examination. The delay in response was attributed to administrative workload. Concerns were raised that the exemption cited appears inapplicable, as the information sought relates to a policy matter of broad professional significance rather than personal information. The issue directly affects Indian advocates, law students, employment opportunities, and India’s position in the global legal services market, making transparency essential.
1. Constitution of Committee
BCI confirmed that a Committee was constituted in the General Council Meeting held on 12 June 2025 to examine the issue of foreign lawyers. The Committee comprised the following members:
- Mr. Cyril Shroff – Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
- Mr. Ajay Bahl – AZB & Partners
- Mr. Suhail Nathani – Economic Laws Practice (ELP)
- Mr. Sandip Bhagat – S&R Associates
- Mr. Mahesh Agarwal – Agarwal Law Associates
- Mr. Amit Kapur – JSA
Convenor: Mr. Srimanto Sen, Principal Secretary, BCI
2. Remuneration: BCI stated that no remuneration was prescribed or paid to the Committee members.
3. Submission of Report
The Committee submitted its report to the BCI on 22 September 2025.
4. Non-disclosure of Report and Deliberations
BCI declined to disclose:
- the Committee’s report; and
- the deliberations of the Bar Council of India on the subject.
The non-disclosure was justified on the grounds that:
- the information is “not in the public domain”,
- exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and
- the report is stated to be under examination.
5. Delay in RTI Response
BCI attributed the delay in responding to the RTI application to administrative workload.
Concerns Arising from the RTI Reply
The reliance placed by BCI on Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act appears to be misplaced, as the information sought pertains to a policy matter of general and professional importance, rather than personal information. The reply, in its present form, offers limited reasoning for withholding material that has a direct bearing on the legal profession.
Public and Professional Significance:
The Committee’s report addresses a fundamental issue:
Whether foreign lawyers and foreign law firms should be permitted to practice in India.
Any policy decision in this regard will have a direct impact on:
- the practice rights and livelihood of Indian advocates,
- employment prospects for young lawyers,
- the future of law students, and
- India’s role in the global legal services market.
Given the composition of the Committee and the importance of the subject, transparency in the decision-making process is essential to ensure confidence, fairness, and institutional credibility. Further, Section 4 of the RTI Act envisages proactive disclosure of information forming the basis of policy decisions by statutory bodies.
Proposed Course of Action
I intend to file a First Appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act seeking disclosure of the Committee’s report and related material.
Download Bar Council Order on RTI Application
Alsop Read: BCI Amends Foreign Lawyer Rules in India
*****
Y. Balachander Reddy is an Advocate based in Telangana and an RTI Activist from Hyderabad (Mobile: 9959850723).
