road-closed-sign Senior advocate and former additional solicitor general Abhishek Manu Singhvi yesterday argued for an early disposal of the Chennai writ petition against foreign law firms while the matter was once again adjourned after the Bar Council of India (BCI) counsel promised comprehensive guidelines regulating the activities of foreign law firms would be discussed at a meeting before the month-end.

BCI counsel and advocate general P S Raman told the court that the BCI had scheduled a meeting for 29 January. He said that a regulatory policy shall soon be adopted to decide on the question of foreign firms practicing in India and it was during this meeting something conclusive would emerge. Additional solicitor general M Ravindran representing the Ministry of Law and Justice also pleaded for more time to file a reply.

The Madras High Court bench comprising of the chief justice M Y Eqbal and justice T S Sivagnanam gave four weeks to the BCI and the government to furnish their replies and adjourned the hearing to 8 March.

Foreign case

But Singhvi, who is representing a number of US law firms that instructed Dua Associates local partner, told Legally India that the petitioners should withdraw the case. “It is an old pending case,” he said. “The basic point of the foreign law firm is that since they don’t practice any form of Indian law, there is no question of requiring an Indian law degree or qualification. Secondly, the central government has found no discrimination in their respective own countries qua Indian practitioners and have therefore deliberately not issued a Section 47 notification barring foreign lawyers from advising on foreign law even in India.”

“Thirdly and most importantly, since for the last one year or so, the bar council has itself been seeking and getting adjournments at Chennai on the basic ground that they are in the process of considering and finalising appropriate regulations on this issue, the foreign firms submitted to the court that the writ is premature. The writ petitioners should withdraw the writs and again approach the court if at all necessary in the light of the new regulation proposed to be framed in the near future and to be scrutinised also by the central government,” he argued.

The petitioner A K Balaji was present in court along with his advocates, explaining that they had intended to seek an adjournment because their arguing senior advocate ARL Sundaresan was not going to appear but that the litigation strategy would remain unchanged.

Chennai case

Balaji told Legally India: “Foreign firms continue to practice in India and by doing so they are violating the Advocates Act every day, we’re seeking a remedy against that. We have no idea about new writ petition. Any change in the [our] petition means the entire concept will go in a wrong way. We don’t intend to amend or modify our writ petition and will continue to plead that there has been violation of the advocates act.”

He added that their case differed from the Bombay High Court verdict as no interim injunction was then granted and the Madras High Court has the power and is competent to grant a stay. According to Balaji, the petition could at most be modified to implead more people as petitioners from their organisation, the Association of Indian Lawyers.


There have been prolonged delays by the BCI in filing its reply, having sought several adjournments citing varied reasons such as inviting consultations from stakeholders and requesting time for convening additional meetings since last August after a majority of foreign law firms filed their counter affidavits in the court.

The matter was last heard on 24 November 2010 after having been adjourned in 5 October 2010 and 19 August 2010 proceedings.

The writ petition was admitted against 31 foreign law firms from UK and US including one LPO in April last year on behalf of Chennai advocate A K Balaji and Kolkata-based Association of Indian Lawyers.

Read Legally India’s detailed analysis of the issues at stake here.

Click to show 5 comments
at your own risk
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
refresh Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Sort chronologically
Like +0 Object -0 Anonymous guest 27 Jan 11, 01:21
India is the only G20 country which does not allow foreign law firms. Then again, India is the only G20 country where lawyers and judges can be bought, crooks and murderers get away scot free, and cow sheds are recognised as law colleges by certain Bar Council members.
Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -0 Anonymous guest 27 Jan 11, 05:59
Tareekh pe tareekh!
Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -0 Anonymous guest 29 Jan 11, 22:09
On reciprocal basis UK and US Bar should accept Indian qualified lawyers to practice in their respective countries without having much hassle. There should be mutual agreements between Bar councils of such countries in this regard.
Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -0 Anonymous guest 30 Jan 11, 02:38
On reciprocal basis UK and US Bar should accept Indian qualified lawyers to practice in their respective countries without having much hassle. There should be mutual agreements between Bar councils of such countries in this regard
Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -0 Anonymous guest 09 Feb 11, 04:40
Young lawyers (with, say, 0-10 years post-qualification exp) drool over Dollar-equivalent payment (hopes/dreams).. the mid-level (10-20 years pqe) are by and large undecided.. and the Seniors (20+ years of their own sweat and blood as court practitioners - and not the "law-firm" aka "sweat-shop" owners) are clear that there are NO freebies anywhere and you have to earn your own bread, and at some level, bread for this country's population as well.. I have about 17 years pqe.

My view: Scrap the concept of "limited liability, unlimited profits" which is bunkum (there is no "limited liability" concept in nature itself - cut all trees, smoke all the oil, kill all the animals and you will not be punished?!!)

And then allow foreign-qualified lawyers to practice as individuals (and Only as individuals) in Indian courts (up to but not including, the High Courts, to begin with) - no "organized" rackets such as "law-firms" to be permitted.

ha ha, now That would be a "level" field...
Reply Report to LI

refreshSort chronologically Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments.