Legally India could not confirm the intention behind issuing the press releases and whether they were the result of a BCI resolution or an individual BCI member’s statements.
India’s press information bureau published two statements on its website on Tuesday. The first was under the heading “Entry of Foreign Law Firms” and stated: “The Bar Council of India, which is concerned with the safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of advocates, has received numerous representations on the subject.
“The Bar Council of India has decided not to permit foreign lawyers into India.”
“However, the said decision is being subject to a more detailed and rational scrutiny in the light of the opinions and points of view of different stakeholders. The Bar Council of India is committed to take steps which will benefit the Indian legal profession.”
The second statement named Opening of Legal Profession to UK Lawyers said: “The Bar Council of India, a statutory body has informed that they perceive the Indian legal profession to be both service oriented as well as based on business principles. However, it is important to understand the legal profession in the Indian context. At the same time, Indian lawyers are not averse to self-upgradation and skill acquisition. Once the said reforms process is initiated, the profession could be stated to be in some readiness to the opening up of the legal sector.
“However, this is a matter which is to be considered by the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council is presently laying a clear road map for the purpose of ensuring legal reforms so that even entry of foreign lawyers would cause no serious concern.”
Last week on 21 September the BCI published minutes to its last three meetings of April, August and 4 September. The minutes documented the de-recognition of more than 50 law schools, as well as an apparent attempt by a law school to unsuccessfully bribe the BCI chairman and solicitor general Gopal Subramanium.
However, on page 24 of the minutes, item No.58/2010 (LE) “to consider the note on permission to practice foreign law in India, including practice in Arbitration / Mediation Law” was deferred on 4 September to the next meeting of the committee.
Subramanium was unavailable for comment at the time of going to press.
In an April Legally India interview with the BCI chairman, Subramanium had said that “at this stage… without any doubt” he was not in favour of the entry of foreign lawyers, adding that Indian lawyers had to “reclaim business” that had left India first and required reciprocity of practice in foreign jurisdictions.
Photo by bossco
Comments
In such circumstances, what bona fides does the Ministry of Law and Justice have to make this press release?
This is akin to Ministry of Finance making a statement on behalf of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
An impartial authority becoming the souding board for the sentiments of one of the many stakeholders? That's as biased as it gets.
Don't believe the hype about rational scrutiny if this is how the autnomous bodies and government ministries operate.
total ****ing BS. we should file an RTI to know what "representations" have been made. conversations with SILF law firm owners in five star retaurants does not count.
SILF and BCI are [...] organisations that stand for nepotism, monopoly, lack of transparency etc. SILF epitomises the crony capitalism and fake democracy of india.
i would not be surprised if some elements of the anti-liberalisation lobby are being funded by china and ISI, which do not want to see india prosper economically.
Not really #2. The CAG is a constitutional post, i.e. its existence and functions are mandated by the Constitution. The BCI is merely statutory - its existence and functions are owing to a statute (the Advocates Act 1961).
The Law ministry's brief I would have thought extends to the administration of justice. And lawyers ("advocates" under the 1961 Act) are the "only class of people allowed to practice law". Advocates are also "officers of the court" - and directly involved in the administration of justice.
If lawyers are merely creatures of statute, therefore the law ministry has full jurisdiction to oversee the affairs of the BCI and by extension, lawyers.
The best way to resolve this issue would be to seek a vote of all the enrolled lawyers in this country and I am sure that the handful of powerful and influencial people who are opposing this would be exposed as they would find themselves in minority.
I think the Prime minister must intervene on this subject as it can be great move and it can bring to light another sector like IT which can rule the world in medium to long term.
I could not concur with you more. Thank you
An Indian lawyer waiting to see the markets opened up
Mr Jha is also right in alluding to the PM's role. Moily is a nobody. Sonia, Manmohan and Pranabda are the people who make the decisions. The PM and FM are pro-FDI but unfortunately Sonia is not and she has been stalling reforms and supporting corrupt ministers. It is disgusting that a foreigner who never even went to college is running this country.
http://www.legallyindia.com/201009051269/Analysis/foreign-law-firms-into-india-voices-in-favour-against-and-why-nothing-changes
The problem is, I believe that there is no pro-liberalisation 'lobby' that has any power or impact, apart from foreign law firms themselves to a limited extent.