Case Law Details

Case Name : Bar Council Of India Vs. A.K. Balaji And Ors. (Supreme Court)
Appeal Number : Civil Appeal No. 7875-7879 Of 2015 , Civil Appeal No.7170 Of 2015 And Civil Appeal No. 8028 Of 2015
Date of Judgement/Order : 13/03/2018
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : Supreme Court of India (1007)
Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Sah

Akhilesh Kumar Sah

Bar Council Of India Vs. A.K. Balaji And Ors. (Supreme Court)

Lawyers of foreign countries or their law firms cannot practice profession of law in India, Bar Council of India or Union of India are at liberty to make appropriate rules in this regard.

Very recently, in Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji and Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos.7875-7879 of 2015 with Civil Appeal No.7170 Of 2015 (Association of Indian Lawyers vs. London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) and ors.) and Civil Appeal No. 8028 of 2015 (Global Indian Lawyers vs. Bar Council of India & Ors.), decided on 13.03.2018], the issue involved in the above appeals was whether foreign law firms/lawyers are permitted to practice in India. Civil Appeal Nos.7875-79 of 2015 had been filed by the Bar Council of India against the Judgment of Madras High Court dated 21.02.2012 in A.K. Balaji vs. The Government of India[AIR 2012 Mad 124] . Civil Appeal No.8028 of 2015 had been filed by Global Indian Lawyers against the judgment of Bombay High Court dated 16.12.2009 in Lawyers Collective vs. Bar Council of India[2010 (2) Mah L J 726]. Briefly, it was pleaded, to practice law in India, a person has to be Indian citizen and should possess degree in law from a recognized University in India.  Nationals of other countries could be admitted as advocates in India only if citizens of India are permitted to practice in such other countries.  Foreign degree of law from a University outside India requires recognition by the Bar Council of India.  The Indian advocates are not allowed to practice in U.K., U.S.A., Australia and other foreign nations except on fulfilling onerous restrictions like qualifying tests, experience, work permit.  Foreign lawyers cannot be allowed to practice in India without reciprocity.

Under the Advocates Act (the Act), a foreigner is not entitled to practice in India in view of bar contained in Section 29.  However, under the guise of LPOs (Legal Process Outsourcing), conducting seminars and arbitrations, foreign lawyers are visiting India on Visitor Visa and practicing illegally.  They also violate tax and immigration laws.  They have also opened their offices in India for practice in the fields of mergers, take-overs, acquisitions, amalgamations, etc. Disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Council extends only to advocates enrolled under the Act.  In India, the legal profession is considered as a noble profession to serve the society and not treated as a business but the foreign law firms treat the profession as trade and business venture to earn money. Indian lawyers are prohibited from advertising, canvassing and solicit work but foreign law firms are advertising through websites and canvass and solicit work by assuring results. Many accountancy and management firms are also employing graduates and thus rendering legal services.

The stand of the Union of India initially was that if foreign law firms are not allowed to take part in negotiations, settling of documents and arbitrations in India, it will obstruct the aim of making India a hub of international arbitration. Many arbitrations with Indian Judges as arbitrators and Indian lawyers are held outside India where foreign and Indian law firms advise their clients.  Barring the entry of foreign law firms for arbitrations in India will result in many arbitrations shifting to Singapore, Paris and London, contrary to the declared policy of the Government and against national interest. In this Court, stand of the Union of India was that presently it was waiting for the Bar Council of India to frame rules on the subject.

Stand of the Bar Council of India before the High Court was that even non litigious practice is included in the practice of law which can be done only by advocates enrolled under the Act. It was submitted that practice of foreign lawyers in India should be subject to regulatory powers of the Bar Council.

Stand of the foreign law firms, inter alia, was that there is no bar to a company carrying on consultancy/support services in the field of protection and management of intellectual, business and industrial proprietary rights, carrying out market service and market research, publication of reports, journals etc.  A person not appearing before Courts or Tribunals and not giving legal advice cannot be said to be practice of law.

The learned senior counsel for the Bar Council of India submitted that Advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of India are the only recognized class of persons entitled to practice law in India.  Unless any other law so permits, no person can practice before any ‘Court, authority or person’ other than an Advocate enrolled under the Act.  In particular cases, the ‘Court, authority or person’ may permit a person other than an advocate enrolled under the Act to appear before him.  It was submitted that the expression “practice profession of law” covered not only appearance before the Court but also opinion work which is also known as chamber practice.  The Ethics prescribed by the Bar Council of India covered not only conduct in appearing before Court or authority but also in dealing with the clients including giving legal opinion, drafting or participation  in law conference.  If a person practices before any ‘Court, authority or person’ illegally, is liable to punishment for imprisonment which may extend to six months.  Thus, the view taken by the Madras High Court that visit by a foreign lawyer on fly in and fly out basis to give advice on foreign law or to conduct arbitration in international commercial arbitrations was erroneous. Reference has also been made to definition of the term ‘advocate’ under Section 2(a) of the Act.  Section 6 lays down functions of the Bar Council including admission of persons as advocates, safeguarding rights, privileges and interests of advocates.  Section 17 lays down that every State Bar Council shall prepare a roll of advocates and no person can be enrolled in more than one State Bar Council.  Section 24 lays down qualifications for admission on the roll of a State Bar council.  The qualifications include the citizenship of India, unless a person is national of a country where citizens of India are permitted to practice.  One is required to have the prescribed qualification from India or out of India if such degree is recognized by the Bar Council of India, being a Barrister called to the Bar before 31.12.1976, passing of articled clerks examination or any other examination specified by the Bombay or Calcutta High Court or obtaining foreign qualification recognized by the Bar Council of India are also the prescribed qualifications.  It was submitted that even in other jurisdictions, persons other than those enrolled with the concerned Bar Council are not allowed to practice. Even short term running of legal service is subject to regulatory regime.

Learned counsels for the foreign law firms supported the direction of the Madras High Court permitting foreign lawyers to render legal services on fly in and fly out basis and also with reference to international commercial arbitrations.  It was submitted that Bar Council could come into picture only in respect of advocates enrolled with it.  It is only with reference to appearance before the Courts or other authorities or persons that the regulatory regime of the Bar Council may apply but with regard to non litigation/advisory work even those not enrolled as advocates under the Advocates Act are not debarred.  It was also submitted by learned counsel that Advocates Act applies only to individuals and not to law firms.  Provision for reciprocity applies only for enrolment under the Advocates Act and not for casual legal services on fly in and fly out basis or in connection with international commercial arbitration.  Foreign lawyers are regulated by the disciplinary regime applicable to them and only their Bar Councils could take action with regard to their working in India also.  Practice of law in India did not cover advising on foreign law.  Thus, if by a pre-determined invitation, a foreign lawyer visited India to advise on a foreign law, there is no bar against doing so.

Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the rival submissions and observed that questions for consideration mainly arise out of directions in para 63 of the Madras High Court judgment, viz.:

(i) Whether the expression ‘practise the profession of law’ includes only litigation practice or non-litigation practice also;

(ii) Whether such practice by foreign law firms or foreign lawyers is permissible without fulfilling the requirements of Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules;

(iii) If not, whether there is a bar for the said law firms or lawyers to visit India on ‘fly in and fly out’ basis for giving legal advice regarding foreign law on diverse international legal issues;

(iv) Whether there is no bar to foreign law firms and lawyers from conducting arbitration proceedings and disputes arising out of contracts relating to international commercial arbitration;

(v)  Whether BPO companies providing integrated services are not covered by the Advocates Act or the Bar Council of India rules.

Hon’ble Supreme Court held regarding above as follows:

RE : (i)

In Pravin C. Shah vs. K.A. Mohd. Ali [(2001) 8 SCC 650], it was observed that right to practice is genus of which right to appear and conduct cases is specie.  It was observed:

“………The right of the advocate to practice envelopes a lot of acts to be performed by him in discharge of his professional duties. Apart form appearing in the courts he can be consulted by his clients, he can give his legal opinion whenever sought for, he can draft instruments, pleadings, affidavits or any other documents, he can participate in any conference involving legal discussions etc.     ……”

In Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India[(2003) 2 SCC 45] , same view was reiterated.

Ethics of the legal profession apply not only when an advocate appears before the Court. The same also apply to regulate practice outside the Court. Adhering to such Ethics is integral to the administration of justice.  The professional standards laid down from time to time are required to be followed. Thus, we uphold the view that practice of law includes litigation as well as non litigation.

RE : (ii)

We have already held that practicing of law includes not only appearance in courts but also giving of opinion, drafting of instruments, participation in conferences involving legal discussion. These are parts of non-litigation practice which is part of practice of law.  Scheme in Chapter-IV of the Advocates Act makes it clear that advocates enrolled with the Bar Council alone are entitled to practice law, except as otherwise provided in any other law. All others can appear only with the permission of the court, authority or person before whom the proceedings are pending. Regulatory mechanism for conduct of advocates applies to non-litigation work also. The prohibition applicable to any person in India, other than advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act, certainly applies to any foreigner also.

RE : (iii)

Visit of any foreign lawyer on fly in and fly out basis may amount to practice of law if it is on regular basis.  A casual visit for giving advice may not be covered by the expression ‘practice’. Whether a particular visit is casual or frequent so as to amount to practice is a question of fact to be determined from situation to situation.  Bar Council of India or Union of India are at liberty to make appropriate rules in this regard.  We may, however, make it clear that the contention that the Advocates Act applies only if a person is practicing Indian law cannot be accepted.  Conversely, plea that a foreign lawyer is entitled to practice foreign law in India without subjecting himself to the regulatory mechanism of the Bar Council of India Rules can also be not accepted. We do not find any merit in the contention that the Advocates Act does not deal with companies or firms and only individuals.  If prohibition applies to an individual, it equally applies to group of individuals or juridical persons.

RE: (iv)

It is not possible to hold that there is absolutely no bar to a foreign lawyer for conducting arbitrations in India.   If the matter is governed by particular rules of an institution or if the matter otherwise falls under Section 32 or 33, there is no bar to conduct such proceedings in prescribed manner. If the matter is governed by an international commercial arbitration agreement, conduct of proceedings may fall under Section 32 or 33 read with the provisions of the Arbitration Act.  Even in such cases, Code of Conduct, if any, applicable to the legal profession in India has to be followed.  It is for the Bar Council of India or Central Government to make a specific provision in this regard, if considered appropriate.

RE: (v)

The BPO companies providing range of customized and integrated services and functions to its customers may not violate the provisions of the Advocates Act, only if the activities in pith and substance do not amount to practice of law.  The manner in which they are styled may not be conclusive.  As already explained, if their services do not directly or indirectly amount to practice of law, the Advocates Act may not apply.  This is a matter which may have to be dealt with on case to case basis having regard to a fact situation.

Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court upheld the view of the Bombay High Court and Madras High Court in para 63 (i) of the judgment to the effect that foreign law firms/companies or foreign lawyers cannot practice profession of law in India either in the litigation or in non- litigation side. Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court held that, we, however, modify the direction of the Madras High Court in Para 63(ii) that there was no bar for the foreign law firms or foreign lawyers to visit India for a temporary period on a “fly in and fly out” basis for the purpose of giving legal advice to their clients in India regarding foreign law or their own system of law and on diverse international legal issues.  We hold that the expression “fly in and fly out” will only cover a casual visit not amounting to “practice”.  In case of a dispute whether a foreign lawyer was limiting himself to “fly in and fly out” on casual basis for the purpose of giving legal advice to their clients in India regarding foreign law or their own system of law and on diverse international legal issues or whether in substance he was doing practice which is prohibited can be determined by the Bar Council of India.  However, the Bar Council of India or Union of India will be at liberty to make appropriate Rules in this regard including extending Code of Ethics being applicable even to such cases. We also modify the direction in Para 63 (iii) that foreign lawyers cannot be debarred from coming to India to conduct arbitration proceedings in respect of disputes arising out of a contract relating to international commercial arbitration.  We hold that there is no absolute right of the foreign lawyer to conduct arbitration proceedings in respect of disputes arising out of a contract relating to international commercial arbitration. If the Rules of Institutional Arbitration apply or the matter is covered by the provisions of the Arbitration Act, foreign lawyers may not be debarred from conducting arbitration proceedings arising out of international commercial arbitration in view of Sections 32 and 33 of the Advocates Act.  However, they will be governed by code of conduct applicable to the legal profession in India. Bar Council of India or the Union of India are at liberty to frame rules in this regard. We also modify the direction of the Madras High Court in Para 63(iv) that the B.P.O. Companies providing wide range of customized and integrated services and functions to its customers like word processing, secretarial support, transcription services, proof reading services, travel desk support services, etc. do not come within the purview of the Advocates Act, 1961 or the Bar Council of India Rules. We hold that mere label of such services cannot be treated as conclusive.  If in pith and substance the services amount to practice of law, the provisions of the Advocates Act will apply and foreign law firms or foreign lawyers will not be allowed to do so.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Corporate Law

Posted Under

Category : Corporate Law (4093)
Type : Judiciary (12277)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *