Global Indian Lawyers V Bar Council of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[SCR, Order XXI Rule 3(1) (a)]

CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
SPEC!. '_ LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
OF 2015
(Arising fro
impugned final judgment and common order dated 16
December J09 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Bombay in V rit Petition (C) No. 1526 of 1995).
IN THE MATTER OF:
Global Indian Lawyers
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
Bar Council of India & Ors
... RESPONDENTS
PAPER BOOK
I.A. No.
of 2015 :
WITH
Application for permission to file Special
Leave Petition
I.A. No.
of 2015 :
AND WITH
Application exemption from filing certifieo
copy of the impugned judgment.
I.A. No.
of 2015 :
AND WITH
Application for condonation of delay in
filing Special Leave Petition.
(PLEASE SEE INDEX INSIDE)
ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD FOR THE PETITIONER: - VIKASH SINGH
__ ._.
'oz
.-
6~
..
~B
-'-"-:~=:-=======--""'_""-===""
.L ~
9 ~
S ~
17 ~
. ~
_.--
..
....=~".=-.-.-"=
Z ~
I.~~
~._-
.~
...
6
.g
L
9
-
S
17
.
.-
.~
sa8ed
s8u~paa:>oJd JO pJo:>aJ JO a~ea

S9Nla33JO~d .::10 a~OJ3~
oN IS
~~
INDEX
s. No.
Particulars
1.
Office Report on Limitation
2.
Listing Proforma
3.
Synopsis and List of dates
4.
Copy of the impugned judgment

and final order dated ~6 December
2009 passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Judicature at Bpombay
in Writ Petition (CO No. 1526 of 1995
5.
Special Leave Petition with Affidavit
6.
Appendix
Advocates Act ,1961
7.
Annexure P-1
True Copy of the order dated ~l02.2012passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature
at Madras rendered in Writ PetitionNo.5614/2010
8.
Annexure P-2
True Copy of the order 04.07.2012
passed by~Hon'ble Court rendered
in SLP (C) 17150-54 of 2012
9.
Application for Permission to file

Special Leave Petition
10.
Application for exemption from filing

certified copy of the impugned judgment and order.
11.
Application for condonation of delay in

filing Special Leave Petition
12.
Letter
Pages
- A-
A)...
Jb,. p
fjl -
i- ~4
4c
- ';:f- t:l
=t1 :f~
':16 -1~1
llJo-141
14~- tlJt
141-14~
149 ..1.r~
-In-

[ORDER XXI RULE 3 (1) (A)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.
IN THE MATTER OF:
liUobcd~J~~
of
~wyeY'~
2016
.... PETITIONER
VERSUS
~~
6f -'l~
{P.An~-
~'(/(
.... RESPONDENTS
OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1.
The petition is/are within time.
2.
The petition is barred by time and there is a delay of

days in filing the same against the order dated
l2_'16
16-/:{- '],oJ'! and
petition for condonation of lEU. days has been filed.

3.
There is a delay of
petition for condonation
days in refilling the petition and

of __
....,...
days in refilling has been
filed.
BRANCH OFFICER
Dated:
l"i.43.2015'
'\
PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
.i
SECTION
:>?., r
Tile case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):
..
'
Central Act: (Title)
',0
Section:
-----
Central Rule: (Title)
'N A
Rule No(s) :
N.
..
o State Act : (Title)

._-+N_,._.~A__.____
o Section:
N I-d._
o State Rule: (Title) .-.-- _ _N.___, A_...._
o Rule No(s) : -----N_:A
..0
... _
N.A-
,0
1:1...
,A
(Date) Jt~_lb:l
0 0 Cf
Impugned Interim Order: (Date) __

Impugned Final Order/Decree:
~_
~......
t:u44 f.I!!lrtot-Jo.U.i(&rI<J~
o
o
Names 0tJ udges: .ila.,J'LAo t>:I)::. .!tli'(t. ~~.
TribunaliA~Jth~rity :'(NaI~e}_,__'
High Court: (Name)
..
, 1:' Nature-of
..
!-tI1l-\'bk
).{tn\'bk
IYW
matter:
'(b) e-mail 10:

(c) Mobile phone number:
',3. (a) Respondent No. 1: llJ,ClY'
.1:'
i>,
N~_ft_.. __.. ._._..__.

','
b.< ""'diu! ~
".
......
..:l)
._.. _
o Criminal
'~vil
2. (a)Petitioner/appeJ1antNo.l:
(b) e-mail ID:
aX ~ .. ~y
Jt~t"Le. ~hl-e~...J~t~
,.:1)
c4l~&Q.,{
1-ncL'tat:.} Lerwy-('~
.1\) A__
vY~
C.f)un.t..4
tV
(c) Mobile phone number: -_._d_
...._
._
CfJ Jl\dUa
d
.'8:__..._
I
.1J-QY'~~
. _
_.
4. (a) Main ~ategory cl~ssification: _~_'CU_f'I.::a

(b) Sub classification..,
.
() L~O'=- '
/'"lIb-"../'
'(.Y\-'/~,
,SLp e.G) ~ t lS'~:11S-~
6. Similar/Pending matter:
.'
J t : I' I
VUttL1
bJ=}ut(A
tJ
5:. Not to be listed before:
~ .. _I
12-
7. Criminal Matters:
(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered:
A"'-J---
(h) FIR No. _,~--'
Yes
C2(No
Date:
-4"'~_,.....e_~---------
, . '(c) Police Station:

(d) Sentence Awarded: ~ __
.__ ,_f\!__;__- .!..-A...L..-
IV ' f]
(e) Sentence Undergone:
8: Land Acquisition Matters:

(a) Date of Section 4 notification:
_---"N~A,.:...-_
(~) Date.ofSection 6 notification:
----Ai- Pr
(c) Date'of Section 17 notiflcation:
tY 8
9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect:
10. Special Category (first petitioner/appellant only):

OSenior
citizen> 65 years
Aid case
DSC/ST
IV' ft
0 Woman/child 0 Disabled 0
0 In custody
N' ft
11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters):

12~.Decided,cases with citation:
,'
Date:
J6 oj, ~~l
or
s-
--- .. ----tJ_-~A- ..------------."-.--
AORfor petitioner(s)/appellant(s)
L2~_b
Registration No. ", __
ctlJUlt>< ~
..
."o
"
Legal
--.---,-.-.,-.
~t'l1
~;
..";"'If'~~~~rt~""""'~
\~:"\\\')r(\
\'\\/I~ ,,\:n."\~YI~
~It'
l',':,lil~~,IJj
61 ~;;r':\ \ ' ' 'It "".\"" -.
. '.t
)', \
, ,\"
.
..... 1..
~,'
\';
c .'
.: .' ~";
_ , : 'tfl'"'~'." r,~!
'0..,.
~'"
\.
.,, __. \_
r\,\ \,.\
J"l..,'
F, \ \.,
(\'
\~
c~,\'\ ~
(\' \?\
(\
\~
\~
, V
\4\')\J{I,
l;
')
\ r?: f,.'1\ \1
,.
[\' ,:S).
\'f
iA.; d\tl~}-' ~;';';;-'(~A\

..~"
"L..
_.
"
"'(\.1....;, '
","t, ') ").

',' ....
l~ ",~,:
(\ ..V\
(.\
\:t'J]lt]
t~
t;;_".,
SYNOPSIS
The present Special Leave Petition is being preferred against the
impugned final judgement and order dated 16 December 2009, passed
by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.1526 of 1995,
whereunder, the Hon'ble High Court has erroneously held that to
practice the profession of law in India, a foreign law firm has to fulfill the
qualification of being enrolled as advocates under the Advocates Act,
1961 (the "Advocates Act").
The Petitioner is a Society registered in India of legal professionals
and appropriately qualified lawyers who are citizens of India and are
qualified to practice law in India and dedicated to promote the
internationalization of the legal fraternity.
The aim and objects for
which the Society has been established includes promoting and creating
opportunities for Indian legal professionals to have a global outlook and
acquire global and international exposure with the inflow of international
law firms into the Indian legal system. The Petitioner aims to enable
Indian qualified lawyers to work with global lawyers being based out of
India and to encourage the working of foreign qualified lawyers and
Indian qualified lawyers from India, to give Indian law students and
Indian qualified lawyers an opportunity of working at international law
firms in India and to promote the setting up of a universal global
standard of regulating legal profession and the code of conduct binding
lawyers.
The Petitioner respectfully submits that one of the most effective
methods to provide international exposure to the lawyers in India is the
entry of foreign law firms into India. The Petitioner is thereby aggrieved
by the findings of the impugned judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of
Bombay which erroneously places a qualification on foreign firms to
register as advocates under the Advocates Act, when there is the no
such restriction under the Advocates Act or under the Bar Council of
India Rules (the "BCI Rules") to prohibit a foreign law firm from
establishing an office in India.
Leave is sought to challenge the judgment and final order dated
16 December, 2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
c
Bombay on the grounds that the impugned judgment is premises on an
incorrect reading of the concept of a law firm. The Petitioner respectfully
submits that under the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961 it is only the
individual lawyers who are required to be registered and not the law
firms in India. Such registered lawyers collectively form a law firm,
which is only a structure, sometimes in the form of partnership, an LLP,
or a sole proprietorship.
Hence, the necessary corollary to this
requirement would entail that even in respect of a foreign law firm, it is

not the 'firm' which is required to be registered under the Advocates Act
(as has been held by the High Court of Bombay), but the individual
lawyers of that firm seeking to practice Indian law who are mandated to
enroll under the provisions of the Advocates Act.
It is further most respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble High
Court of Bombay in its impugned order as well as the Hon'ble High Court
of Madras in the case of AK Sa/aji v the Government of India reported in
2012 (1) L.W. 785 have not touched the following questions of law,
which are hereinbelow raised as being imperative in the larger public
interest of the legal profession and justice delivery system, to be
adjudicated by this Hon'ble Court:
i)
The Courts have not considered the question that an Indian

qualified lawyer can qualify in multiple jurisdictions and there is no
restriction on such Indian qualified lawyer from practicing Indian
law as well as the law of the other jurisdiction(s) where he or she
has qualified.
ii)
The Courts have not delved upon the requirements under the
Advocates Act and the BCI Rules for registration of lawyers based
upon the demarcation of the practice of the profession of law into
the practice of Indian law and the practice of foreign law.
iii)
The Courts have also not delved into the possibility of whether a
foreign law firm could have Indian qualified lawyers join the firm
and practice Indian law, whereas the foreign lawyers could
practice only foreign law.
iv)
Though the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has in principle upheld

the practice of foreign law in India by foreign lawyers albeit on a
ff
"fly in fly out basis", it is submitted that there is no restriction in

the Advocates Act or the Bar Council Rules for profession of
foreign law in India by appropriately qualified lawyers on a
permanent basis as well (such lawyer could be a dually qualified
Indian citizen as well).
v)
The Advocates Act and the BCI Rules do not regulate or prohibit
the profession of foreign law, which is governed by laws of each
foreign state and only apply to the practice of Indian law.
vi)
Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has erred in assuming

that the work conducted by foreign law firms in India would go
unregulated. In this regard, it is submitted that each individual
registered lawyer in such firms would be independently regulated
under the Advocates Act, as is the case with Indian law firms.
Furthermore, the
lawyers practicing foreign law would be
regulated by the laws of each foreign state whose law they seek
to practice.
In light of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the impugned
judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay is untenable in law and it
is expedient in the interest of justice and the profession of law in India
that this Hon'ble Court take into consideration the rights of dual qualified
lawyers (qualified in Indian and foreign law) as well as only foreign
qualified lawyers (Indians or non-Indians) to practice law in India under
the umbrella of a foreign law firm. Hence, the present Special Leave
Petition.
LIST OF EVENTS
The Petitioner is a Society registered in India
under the Societies Registration Act, of legal
professionals who are citizens of India and
are qualified to practice law in India and
dedicated to promote the internationalization
of the legal fraternity.
The aim and objects for which the Society
has been established includes promoting and
creating
opportunities
for
Indian
legal
professionals to have a global outlook and

get
global
and
promoting
international
and . facilitating
exposure,
Indian
law
students and Indian legal professionals to

pursue foreign
promote
and
degree and courses, to

facilitate
Indian
qualified
lawyers, also being qualified in a foreign

jurisdiction, to be entitled to recognition of
their dual qualifications in India and to be
able to practise as such in and from India, to
embrace
the
growing
influence
of
globalization on the legal fraternity in India,

in order to give Indian law students and
Indian lawyers the necessary exposure to
compete with the best in the world, to enable
the Indian legal fraternity to benefit from the
opening up the legal sector with the inflow of
international law firms into the Indian legal
system with appropriately qualified lawyers,
to form an association with the aim to
promote
and
international
support
law
firms
the
entry
of
into
India,
to
participate and assist in all and any pending

litigation whereby international law firms are
unable to enter India and or set up their
offices in India, with a view to fulfill the
objectives of the Society, to grow the Indian
legal
profession
by
assisting
and
internationalizing it, to promote and facilitate

Indian lawyers from being able to practice
foreign law in India, upon being appropriately
qualified both from India and abroad, to
enable Indian qualified lawyers to work with
global lawyers being based out of India and
to encourage the working of foreign qualified
,
}-f
,
lawyers and Indian qualified lawyers from

India, to give Indian law students and Indian
qualified lawyers an opportunity of working at
international law firms in India and to
promote the setting up of a universal global
standard of regulating legal profession and
the code of conduct binding lawyers, and so
on.
In
sum and substance, the
Petitioner's
activities focus on embracing globalization of

the legal fraternity in India, in order to give
Indian lawyers and Indian law students the
necessary exposure to compete with and
learn from the best practices in the world and
an opportunity to work along with the best
international legal practices and legal minds.
The Petitioner states that one of the most
effective methods to provide international
level exposure to the lawyers in India would
be to allow the entry of foreign law firms into
India.
1995
Lawyer's Collective, a Society registered

under the Societies Registration Act and
under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, filed a
Writ Petition in public interest being W.P. No.
1526 of 1995 before the Hon'ble High Court
of Judicature at Bombay. Vide the aforementioned writ petition, two issues were
raised for the consideration and adjudication
of the High Court, namely; Whether the
permissions granted by the Reserve Bank of
India to the Respondent No. 12 to 14 therein,
i.e., Foreign Law Firms to establish their place
of business in India (Liaison Office) under

Section
29
of
the
Foreign
Exchange
Regulation Act, 1973 are legal and valid?

Secondly,
assuming
such
permission
are
valid, whether these foreign law firms could

carryon
their liaison activities in India only
on being enrolled as advocates under the

Advocates
question
Act,
1961?
was, whether
In
particular,
practicing
the
in non-
litigious matters amounts to 'practicing the

profession of law' under Section 29 of the
Advocates Act, 1961?
17-18/11/2007
Meanwhile, pending the writ petition, the Bar

Council
of
India
held
its
Consultative
Conference wherein a Resolution of the Bar

Council of No. 17/2006
was
re-affirmed
and
dated
12/02/2006
further
it
was
unanimously resolved that the Foreign Law

Firms and Foreign lawyers
(who
are not
enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961) will

not be allowed to practice, the 'profession of
law' in India.
It further resolved to request the Government
of India not to open up the Indian
Legal
Profession to Foreign lawyers or Foreign Law

Firms at this juncture and not to permit the
entry of Foreign Lawyers or Foreign Law
Firms into India for function or practice the
Profession of Law as Advocates, Lawyers or
Solicitors.
16/12/2009
That vide the impugned judgment and order

dated 16/12/2009, the Hon'ble High Court of
Judicature at Bombay was pleased to dispose
H
of
the
Writ
Petition
being
W.P.
No.
1526/1995 filed by Lawyers Collective by

answering the two issues raised therein
under as follows:
i)
The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High

Court held that the RBI was not
justified in granting permission to the
foreign law firms to open the liaison
offices in India under section 29 of the
1973 Act. The learned bench held that
the activity carried on by the foreign
law firms at their head office, branch
offices and liaison offices in India were
intricately linked to the practice in nonlitigious matters. Section 29 of the
1973 Act relates to granting permission
for business purposes and not for
professional purposes and, therefore,
the
RBI could
not
have granted
permission to these foreign law firms

under Section 29 of the 1973 Act.
ii)
Secondly, the Hon'ble High Court was

pleased to hold that these foreign law
firms
could carryon
their
activities
in
India
only
enrolled
as
advocates
liaison
on
under
being
the
Advocates Act, 1961 and further held

that the expression "to practice the
profession of law" in section 29 of the
1961 Act is wide enough to cover
persons practicing in litigious matters
as well as persons practicing in nonlitigious matters in India. The foreign
law firms who were party before the
Hon'ble Bench were bound to follow
I
the provisions contained in the 1961
Act.
The learned Bench categorically ruled
that the Chamber Practice, namely,
practice in non-litigious matters is also
within the purview of the 1961 Act.
It is pertinent to note that while so

disposing of the
wit
petition,
the
Hon'ble High Court was further pleased

to direct the Central Government to
take appropriate decisions in matters
relating to foreign lawyers and foreign
law firms which is pending before the
Central Government for more than 15
years and till the pendency of the
afore-said issued related to foreign
lawyers and foreign law firms, the 1961
Act would prevail on the persons
practicing
the
irrespective of
profession
the
of
practice
law
being
litigious or non-litigious in nature.
2010
That in the year 2010, Shri. A.K. Balaji,

an advocate by profession filed a Civil
Writ Petition being W.P. No. 5614/2010
alongwith M.P. No's 1, 3to 5 of 2010 in
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Madrasinter-alia praying for issuing of a
Writ
of
Mandamus or
any
other
appropriate writ, order or direction in

the nature of Mandamus directing the
Respondents to take appropriate action
against the Respondents9 to 40 therein
or any other foreign law firms or foreign
J
lawyers who are illegally practicing the
profession of law in India and prohibit
them from having any legal practice
either in the litigious side or in the field
of
non-litigious
and
commercial
transactions in any matter within the

territory of India.
The submission of the writ petitioner
therein was premised on the reasoning
that foreign lawyers who visit India for
purposes of conducting seminars in
various parts of the Country, or for the
purposes of giving legal opinions on
international transactions to their offices
and/or client offices based in India, are
illegally carrying on the 'practice of
profession of law' in India.
The Petitioner therein also stated that
the Respondents9 to 40 are advertising
their work (practicing the profession of
law), thereby violating and contravening
the ethics and code of conduct, in India.
August 2011
The Bar Council of India, arrayed as

Respondent in
the
afore-mentioned
W.P. No. 5614/2010 filed its counter

affidavit contending that the issues
relating to the practicing the "profession
of law" by the Foreign lawyers (without
being enrolled under the Advocates Act,
1961) or coming under the rule of
reciprocity and the setting' up of offices
by the Foreign Law Firms in India
illegally
and
carrying
on
their
professional practice is no longer resintegra as these issues have already

been settled by the Judgment and order
dated 16/12/2009 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ
Petition No. 1526/1995, in the matter of
Lawyers Collective v. Bar Council of
India.
Various Foreign Law Firms were arrayed

as party respondents to the aforementioned
writ
petition
and
upon
entering appearance and filing their

counter-affidavits, the stand taken by
the
said
Respondents-Foreign Law
Firms was to the effect that:

i)
The Firms being Foreign law Firms

having their offices in various
parts of different countries, has
clients with diverse international
legal issues, who require legal
advice from different countries,
for which the firm
developed
working relationships with local

law firms in different countries.
ii)
That for Indian clients requiring

legal advice in India, the Firms
refers the work to various Indian
Lawyers and law firms located in
cities
where
such
advice
is
required. All such Indian Lawyers

are enrolled with various State
Bar Councils in India.
L
iii)
In respect of reciprocity, it was

stated that their country does not
prevent or discriminate against
Indian citizens practicing law in
their
country
and
that
the
American Bar Association Model

Rule for Licensing and Practice of
Foreign Legal Consultants which
provides that an Indian advocate
of good standing in an Indian Bar
Council
may
be
licensed to
practice law in the U.S. without

undergoing any examination.
iv)
It
was
further
adverted
that
several Indian advocates practice

law in the U.S. by associating
with U.S. licensed lawyers and
that
these
Indian
lawyers
frequently travel to the U.S. on a

temporary basis for consultations
on Indian Law issues.
v)
On
the
Applicability
of
the
Advocates Act, 1961 on foreign

lawyers, it was submitted that the
Bar Council Rues govern the
practice of Indian law only and
they do not apply to the practice
of foreign or non-Indian law.
vi)
That foreign
lawyers, who are
licensed in their jurisdictions, are

not restrained by the Advocates
Act, 1961 from advising their
Indian clients on Foreign Law
issues.
vii) As regards the allegation in respect

of participating in seminars and
conferences would
amount to
practicing law, it is stated that

participation
in a seminar or
...
conference does not constitute
practicing
law,
and
in
fact,
several Indian lawyers participate

in
seminars
and
conferences
around the world, and this in no

way constitutes practicing law.
viii) That on the aspect of absence of
regulating authority, the foreign
firms stated that the rules and
regulations
authority
of
in
the
a
regulating
country
will
generally apply to lawyers even

when they are working outside
their home countries.
21/02/2012
The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at

Madras vide its judgment and order
dated
21/02/2012
was
pleased to
dispose of the writ petition on the

following observations:
a) Foreign
lawyers
law
and
firms
cannot
foreign
practice
the
profession of law in India either on

the litigation or non-litigation side,
unless they fulfill the requirement of
the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar
Council of India Rules.
b) However, there is no bar either in
the Act or the Rules for the foreign
law firms or foreign lawyers to visit
N
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.
c) Moreover,.having regard to the aim
and objects of the International
Commercial Arbitration introduced in
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, foreign lawyers cannot be
debarred to come to India and
conduct arbitration proceedings in
respect of disputes arising out of a
contract
relating
to
international
commercial arbitration.
d) The B.P.OCompanies providing wide
range of customized and integrated
services
and
functions
customers
like
Secretarial
support,
services, proof
to
its
word-processing.
transcription
reading services,
travel desk service etc. do not come

within the purview of the Advocates
Act, 1961 or the Bar Council of India
Rules. However, in the event of any
complaint made against these B.P.O
Companiesviolating the provisions of
the Act, the Bar Council of India may
take appropriate action against such
erring companies.
Note:
The judgment
and order
dated 21/02/2012 passed by the

Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
o
Madras in Writ Petition No. 5614/2010 titled
'A./(, Balaji vs. Bar Council of India & Ors' is
herein
produced by
way
of
additional
documents for reason that the same is

passed subsequent to the passing of the
impugned order dated 16/12/2009.
True Copy of the order dated :<.1/tU./20(J1
rendered in Writ Petition No. 5614/2010 is
annexed hereto and marked as Annexure
P-1. (Pages1:~
...to.tJ?~.)
04/07/2012
Being aggrieved by the afore-said judgment

and order of the High Court of Judicature at
Madras, the Bar Council of India preferred a
Special Leave to Appeal, which came to be
numbered as SLP (C) No. 17150-54 of 2012,
whereby this Hon'ble Court vide its order
dated 04/07/2012
was pleased to
issue
notice.
True Copy of the order dated 04/07/2012
rendered in SLP (C) No. 17150-54 of 2012
P~d
'0'1 ~
Hd1~lL._ UlJ.Y~
is
annexed hereto and marked as Annexure P-
2. (Pages.l~oto.J_lJ./.)
2014
The present Petitioner Society came to be

registered under the Societies Registration
,,--
p
Act, with the sole aim and objective of
promoting the internationalization of the legal
fraternity. Having noticed the diametrically
opposite views taken by the two high Courts
in respect of the issue regarding entry of
Foreign Law Firms in India, the Society
thought it expedient in the interest of the legal
profession and justice delivery system to
challenge the judgment and final order dated
16/12/2009 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 1526/2009
by way of leave to appeal under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India. As such, vide its
Resolution dated :2 0 1'1, the Petitioner Society
resolved to prefer a special leave petition to
urge certain additional issues with respect to .
the issue of entry of foreign law firms in India,
which have not been adhered to or considered
by either of the two High Courts in their
judgments aforementioned.
J~ /03/2015
Hence, this Special Leave Petition.
Judgment
- W.P.1S26/199S
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1526 OF 1995
LAWYERS COLLECTIVE, a Society registered

under the Societies RegistrationAct and under
the Bombay Public Trusts Act, having its office
at 4th Floor, Jalaram Jyot, 63, Janmabhoomi
Marg, Fort, Bombay - 400 001 (India)
Vis.
1.
Bar Council of India, established under

the provisions of the Advocates Act 1961,
and having its office at 21 RouseAvenue,
Deendayal Upadhyaya Marg,
New Delhi - 110 0021
2.
Bar Council of the State of Maharashtra

and Goa having its Office at High Court
Extension, Bombay - 400032.
3.
Bar Council of the State of Delhi, having

its address at High Court Building,
New Delhi - 110 003.
4.
Bombay Incorporated Law Society, having

its office at High Court New Building, North
Wing, Bombay - 400001.
5.
Bar Association of the Supreme Court of

India, having its office at Supreme Court
......Petitioners
Judgment - W.P.1526/1995
of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi - 110 001.

6.
Bar Association of India, having its office

at 93, Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court
7.
Union of India,
8.
Reserve Bank of India, being a body

constituted under the provisions of the
Reserve Bank Act, 1934 having its
principal office at Horniman Circle,
Bombay - 400 023.
9.
Directorate of Enforcement, ReseNe Bank

of India, having its office at Janmabhoomi
Chambers, New Marine Lines, Bombay.
10.
Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry

of Finance, North Block, New Delhi.
11.
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,

Aaykar Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Bombay j
12.
White & Case, a firm of lawyers having

its head office at 1155Avenue of the
Americans, New York, New York 10036,
United States of America and with offices
at the Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 400021.
13.
Chadbourne & Parke, a law firm having

its head office at Rockefeller Plaza, New
York, New York 11012-0127,United States
of America and with offices at Hotel Maurya
Sheraton, new Delhi and/or at A-168,
Anand Niketan, New Delhi - 110 021.
14.
Ashurst Morris Crisp having its principal

office at Broadwalla House, 5, Apollo Street,
London EC 2A- 2HA and with offices at
6, Aurangazeb Road, D-202 Chanakyapuri,
New Delhi - 110 011 India
15.
Society of India Law Firms,

S-454, Greater Kailash, Part - II,
New Delhi 11- 048
...... Respondents.
r
Mr.Chander Uday Singh, Senior Advocate

MS.Firdaus Moosa for the petitioner.
with Mr.Anand
Grover with
Mr.AG. Damle for Respondent NO.2.

Mr.P.A Jani i/by Vigil Juris for Respondent NO.4.
Mr.S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sandeep Mahadik i/by M/s.Bhasin
& Co., for Respondent NO.6.
Mr.Rajinder Singh, Senior Advocate, Mr.Deobia, Senior Advocate, Mr.Rv,
Desai, Senior Advocate, Mr.M.1. Sethna, Senior Advocate with Mr.AM.
Sethna and Mr.vinod Joshi for respondent NO.7,9, 10 and 11.
Mr. AY. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.H. Munjjee & Mr.Rajesh
Talekar i/by M/s.K. Ashar & Co. for respondent NO.8.
Mr. N.H. Seervai, senior Advocate with Mr. Firdosh Pooniwala i/by MIs. Little
& Co. for respondent NO.12.
Mr.Shiraz Rustomji with Anil Agarwal for respondent No.13.
Mr.I.M. Chagla and Mr.D.H. Khambata, Senior Advocates
Purohit i/by M/s.Kanga & Co. for respondent NO.14.
with Mr.Simil
Mr.S.N. Fadia i/by Mr.Naresh Fadia for Respondent No.1S.

Mr.Venkatesh Dhond with Mr.Prashant Beri i/by M/s.Beri & Co. for Applicants
(Intervenors)
CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P. DEVADHAR, J.
Judgment
reserved On
Judgment delivered On
4TH DECEMBER. 2009

16TH DECEMBER. 2009
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per J.P. Devadhar, J.)
1.
Basically two questions are raised in this petition. They are,
firstly, whether the permissions granted by the Reserve Bank of India to the
respondent Nos.12 to 14 foreign law firms to establish their place of
business in India (liaison office) under Section 29 of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1973 are legal and valid ? Secondly, assuming such
permissions are valid, whether these foreign law firms could carryon their
liaison activities in India only on being enrolled as advocates under the
Advocates Act, 1961 ? To be specific, the question is, whether practising in
non litigious matters amounts to 'practising the profession of law' under
section 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961 ?
2.
The Parliament has enacted the Advocates Act, 1961 (,1961
Act' for short) to regulate the persons practising the profession of law. To
ensure the dignity and purity of the noble profession of law, the 1961 Act
provides for establishment of the State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of
India. The Bar Councils have been created at the State level as also at the
Central level not only to protect the rights, interests and privileges of its
members but also to protect the interest of the general public by ensuring
them that the professionals rendering the legal services maintain high and
noble traditions of the profession.
3.
A person can be said to be practising in litigious matters when
he renders legal assistance by acting, appearing and pleading on behalf of

another person before any Court or authority. Similarly, a person can be
said to be practising in non litigious matters, when he represents to be an
expert in the field of law and renders legal assistance to another person by
drafting documents, advising clients, giving opinions, etc.
dispute that for a person to practise in litigious matters,
There is no
he has to be
enrolled as an advocate under the 1961 Act. However, the dispute is, where
a person wants to practise in non litigious matters, whether, he should be
enrolled as an advocate under the 1961 Act?
4.
This writ petition is filed by a society which is duly registered
under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as well as under the Bombay
Public Trust Act, 1960.
The members of the petitioner - society are
Advocates enrolled on the rolls of various Bar Council in India and also law
students. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition in public interest
as according to them, the permission granted by the Reserve Bank of India
('RBI' for short) to the foreign law firms, namely respondents No.12 to 14 to
open liaison offices in India is totally illegal and in gross violation of the
provisions of the 1961 Act. Since the petitioner is concerned with the
practice of legal profession and particularly concerned in ensuring that the
ethical practise prevail in the legal profession in India, the petitioner seeks
declaration that the permission granted by RBI to the respondents No.12 to
14 is bad in law and that the respondents No.12 to 14 cannot be permitted to
carryon their activities in India unless they are enrolled as advocates under
the 1961 Act.
5.
Respondents No.12 to 14 who are the foreign law firms
practising the profession of law in U.K. / U.S.A. and having branch offices in
different parts of the world had applied to the RBI during the period 1993 to
1995 seeking permission to open their liaison offices in India.
In the
application filed by respondent No.12, it was stated that the activities to be

carried on by the liaison offices were :"A.
To act as a coordination and communications channel

between the White & Case head office and other White
& Case offices and its clients in and outside India;
B.
To coordinate and liaise with the various Government

agencies and bodies, including Reserve Bank of India;
C.
To act as a coordination and communication channel

between offices of While & Case and Indian legal
advisors assisting such offices or other clients;
D.
To collect information and data in respect of clients and

prospective clients and furnish the same to the head
office and other White & Case offices;
E.
To establish business contacts and act as a listening

post between the head office and the Indian entities;
F.
To explore and promote the possibility of foreign

investments and technical and financial collaborations in
India with clients and prospective clients;
G.
To provide information regarding While & Case to clients

and other interested parties; and
H.
To provide administrative, secretarial and other support

services to VisitingWhile & Case personnel."
Similar applications were also made by respondents No.13 and
14 to the RBI.
6.
On processing the applications made by respondents No.12 to
14, the RBI granted them permission to open their respective liaison offices
in India, subject to the conditions set out therein. The conditions imposed by
the RBI were :-
"(i)
Except the proposed liaison work, representative will not

undertake any other activity of a trading commercial or
industrial nature nor shall he enter into any business
contracts in his own name without our prior permission.
(ii)
No commission fees will be charged or any other

remuneration
received / income earned by the
representative for the liaison activities / services
rendered by the representative or otherwise in India.
(iii)
The entire expenses of the representative office will be

met exclusively out of the funds received from abroad
through normal banking channels.
(iv)
The representative shall not borrow or lend any money

from / to any person in India without our prior permission.
(v)
The representative shall not acquire, hold (otherwise

than by way of lease for a period not exceeding five
years) transfer or dispose of any immovable property in
India without obtaining prior permission of the Reserve
Bank of India under Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1973.
(vi)
The representative will furnish to us (on a yearly basis) :
(vii)
(a)
a certificate from the auditors to the effect that

during the year no income was earned by/or
accrued to the office in India.
(b)
details of remittances received from abroad duly

support by bank certificates;
(c)
certified copy of the audited final accounts of the

office in India; and
(d)
annual report of the work done by the office in

India, stating therein the details of actual export or
import, if any, effected during period in respect of
which the office had rendered liaison services.
The representative in India will not have signing /

commitment powers except than those which are
required for normal functioning of representative office
on behalf of the Head Office."

7.
In the permission letter, it was, however, specifically stated that
the permission granted to the respondents No.12 to 14 is limited for the

purpose of Section 29 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 C 1973
Act' for short) and that the said permission should not be construed in any
way regularizing, condoning or in any manner validating any irregularities,
contraventions or other lapses if any under the provisions of any other law
for the time-being in force.
8.
Mr.C.U. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submitted that the permission granted by RBI to respondents

No.12 to 14 under Section 29 of the 1973 Act is bad in law, because, firstly,
nationals of foreign states intending to practice any profession in India can
be granted permission under Section 30 and not under Section 29 of the
1973 Act. Secondly, to carryon the profession of law even in non-litigious
matters, enrollment as advocates under the 1961 Act was mandatory. Since
the foreign law firms were not enrolled as advocates under the 1961Act, the
RBI could not have granted permission to the respondents No.12 to 14 to
open their liaison offices in India under Section 29 of the 1973Act.
9.
Mr.Singh further submitted that the 1961 Act is a complete
code for regulating the practice of law in India. He submitted that as per
Section 24 read with Section 29 of the 1961 Act, any person intending to
practise the profession of law must be enrolled as an advocate on any State
Bar Council established under the 1961 Act. Since the expression 'to
Judgment
- W.P.1S26/199S
practice the profession of law' includes both practise in litigious matters as

well as non-litigious mattes, Mr.Singh submitted that the foreign law firms
namely respondents No.12 to 14 could not have carried on practise in nonlitigious matters without being enrolled as advocates under the 1961Act.
10.
Mr.Singh further submitted that the right to practise the
profession of law cannot be said to be confined to physical appearances in

Courts / Tribunals / other authorities, but the right to practise the profession
of law necessarily includes giving legal advise to a client, drafting and
providing any other form of legal assistance. Mr.Singh submitted that the
petitioner is not aversed to the foreign law firms practising the profession of
law in India, however, the grievance of the petitioner is that the foreign law
firms cannot be permitted to practise the profession of law even in nonlitigious matters without being enrolled as advocates under the 1961Act.
11.
In support of his argument that the right to practise the
profession of law includes both, practising in litigious matters as well as the

practise in non-litigious matters, Mr.Singh relied upon various decisions,
relevant portions of the said judgments are extracted herein below.
12.
The Court of Appeals of New York in the matter of New York
County Lawyers Association (Roel) reported in 3 N. Y. 2D 224, inter alia

held thus :"
Whether a person gives advice as to New
York law, Federal law, the law of a sister State, or the law of a
foreign country, he is giving legal advice. Likewise, when
legal documents are prepared for a layman by a person in the
Judgment - W.P.1S26/199S
business of preparing such documents. that person is

practicing law whether the documents be prepared in
conformity with law of New York or any other law. To hold
otherwise would be to state that a member of the New York
Bar only practices law when he deals with local law, a
manifestly anomalous statement.
.............................. As heretofore pointed out. the public is as
liable to injury when an unlicensed person gives advice to an
individual as to his legal rights under foreign law as it is with.
respect to his rights under domestic law. The State need not
have separate examinations for those who will specialize in
real estate law. patent law. mining law. foreign law. or any
other law. There are many branches of the law that a Bar
examination does not reach, but the test is a general one
which all qualified applicants are required to take. And so all
are equally subject to the same character qualifications. Thus
it is not unreasonable to require that a person desiring to
engage in the practice of foreign law be admitted to the Bar.
here and be subject to the same rules as every other member
of the Bar of this State."
(emphasis supplied)
13.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina in its opinion No.25757
reported in 2003 S.C. Lexis 293, inter alia held thus :"Based on the foregoing analysis, we hold that when
nonlawyer title abstractors examine public records and then
render an opinion as to the content of those records. they are
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. But if a licensed
attorney reviews the title abstractor's report and vouches for
its legal sufficiency by Signing the report, title abstractors
would not be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law."
(emphasis supplied)
14.
In the case of Legal Practice Board VIs. Wilhelmus Van Der
Zwaan reported in (2002) WASC 133, the Supreme Court of Western

Australia, has held thus :"The expression "administration of law" in s 77 is to be read
as meaning "the practice of law" or "the practice of the law".
The practice of the law includes the giving of legal advice and
counsel to others as to their rights and obligations under the
law. and the preparation of legal instruments by which legal.
11
rights are either obtained. secured or given away. although

such matters may not then. or ever. be the subject of
proceedings in a court. If the giving of such advice and
performance of such services affect important rights of a
person under the law, and if the reasonable protection of the
rights and property of those advised and served requires that
the person giving such advise possess legal ski" and a
knowledge of the law greater than that possessed by the
average citizen, then the giving of such advice and the
performance of such services by one for another as a course
of conduct, constitutes the practice of the law. Where an
instrument is to be shaped from a mass of facts and
conditions, the legal effect of which must be carefully
determined by a mind trained in the existing laws in order to
ensure a specific result and to guard against others, more
than the knowledge of the layman is required. A charge for
such service brings it within the term "practice of the law"."
o
15.
(emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in the case of Ex. Capt Harish Uppal VIs.
Union of India reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 45, has held
thus :"34.
The right of the advocate to practise
envelopes a lot of acts to be performed by him in discharge of
his professional duties. Apart from 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, he can work in any
office or firm as a legal officer, he can appear for clients
before an arbitrator or arbitrators etc. Such a rule would have
nothing to do with a" the acts done by an advocate during his
practice. He may even file vakalat on behalf of a client even
though his appearance inside the court is not permitted.
Conduct in court is a matter concerning the court and hence
the Bar Council cannot claim that what should happen inside
the court could also be regulated by them in exercise of their
disciplinary powers. The right to practise. no doubt. is the
genus of which the right to appear and conduct cases in the
court may be a specie. But the right to appear and conduct
cases in the court is a matter on which the court must and
does have major supervisory and controlling power. Hence,
courts cannot be and are not divested of control or
supervision of conduct in court merely because it may involve
the right of an advocate
"
" "
(emphasis supplied)
16.
In the case of Supreme Court Bar Association
VIs. Union of
India reported in (1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 409, the Apex Court has
held thus :"58. After the coming into force of the Advocates Act, 1961,
exclusive power for punishing an advocate for "professional
misconduct" has been conferred on the State Bar Council
concerned and the Bar Council of India. That act contains a
detailed and complete mechanism for suspending or revoking
the licence of an advocate for his "professional misconduct".
Since the suspension or revocation of licence of an advocate
has not only civil consequences but also penal consequences,
the punishment being in the nature of penalty, the provisions
have to be strictly construed. Punishment by way of
suspending the licence of an advocate can only be imposed
by the competent statutory body after the charge is
established against the advocate in a manner prescribed by
the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
71. Thus, after the coming force of the Advocates Act, 1961
with effect from 19-5-1961, matters connected with the
enrolment of advocates as also their punishment for
professional misconduct is governed by the provisions of that
Act only. Since, the jurisdiction to grant licence to a law
graduate to practise as an advocate vests exclusively in the
Bar Council of the State concerned, the jurisdiction to
suspend his licence for a specified term or to revoke it also
vests in the same body."
(emphasis supplied)
17.
In the case of Pravin C. Shah VIs. K.A. Mohd Ali reported in
(2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 650, the Apex Court has held thus :-
"16. .
The right of the advocate to practise
envelops a lot of acts to be performed by him in discharge of
his professional duties. Apart from 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
"
(emphasis supplied)
Judgment - W.P.1S26/1995
18.
In the light of the aforesaid decisions, Mr.Singh submitted that
the lawyers practising in litigious as well as non-litigious matters are

governed by the 1961 Act and bound by the rules framed by the regulatory
body, namely, the Bar Council of India. He submitted that the Bar Council is
constituted with a view to keep check on the lawyers who render services to
their clients in litigious as well as non-litigious matters. He submitted that no
country in the world permits unregulated practise of law and, therefore, the
permission granted by the RBI to the respondents No.12 to 14, under
Section 29 of the 1973 Act to open a liaison office in India amounts to
permitting the foreign law firms to open their branch offices in India and
practise the profession of law without being enrolled as advocates under the
1961 Act. He submitted that in view of the permission granted by RBI, the
foreign law firms, namely respondents No.12 to 14 have an unfair advantage
over the advocates practising the profession of law in India, because, Indian
advocates practising in non litigious matters are subjected to the provisions
of the 1961 Act and the rules framed by the Bar Council, whereas, the
foreign law firms like respondents No.12 to 14 are neither subjected to the
1961 Act nor the rules framed by the Bar Council. Accordingly, Mr.Singh
submitted that the permission granted by RBI being in gross violation of the
provisions contained in the 1973 Act as well as the 1961 Act, the said
permission must be declared to be illegal and contrary to law.
19.
Counsel for the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of
Maharashtra & Goa have adopted the arguments advanced by the counsel
for the petitioner.
20.
Mr.Rajinder Singh, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Union of India submitted that there is no proposal, as of now, to allow foreign

lawyers to practice Indian law in Indian Courts.
He submitted that the
Government is still in the process of consulting all the stake holders and any
decision on the issue will be taken after considering the views of all the
stake holders. However, Counsel for the Union of India submitted that for
drafting legal documents or giving opinion on aspects of foreign or
international law, one need not be on the roll of the Bar Council. He further
submitted that if the contention of the petitioner is accepted then, no
bureaucrat will be able to draft or given opinion. He submitted that reading
various provisions of the 1961 Act particularly Section 24, 29 and 45 of the
1961 Act, it becomes clear that the 1961 Act prescribes the mode and the
manner of enrolling advocates who want to practice the profession of law
before Courts, Tribunals and other authorities and provide for punitive action
against advocates who have violated the provisions contained in the 1961
Act and the rules framed by the Bar Council. Counsel for the Union of India
further submitted that the fact that the 1961 Act contains penal provisions in
respect of persons illegally practicing in Courts and other authorities, and
does not provide any penal provisions tor the breaches committed by
persons practicing in non-litigious matters clearly shows that persons
practicing in non-litigious matters are not governed by the provisions of the
1961 Act.
21.
Counsel for the Union of India further submitted that as per the
J_(
Judgment - W.P.152611995
rules framed by the Bar Council, an advocate on being appointed as a Law

secretary is required to intimate the Bar Council to suspend his enrollment
during his tenure as Law Secretary. Similarly, a retired Supreme Court Judge
is not required to be on the role of Bar Council for drafting opinions or
carrying on the chamber practice. Referring to Section 477 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, Civil Code Manual 1986, Section 13 of the Family Courts
Act, 1984 and Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005, Counsel for the Union
of India submitted that the persons who are permitted to act as petition
writers in the criminal courts or persons nominated an amicus curie need not
be on the roll of the Bar Council. In these circumstances, Counsel for the
Union of India submitted that a person carrying on the profession of drafting
and giving opinion is not required to be enrolled as advocate under the 1961
Act and, therefore, no fault can be found with RBI in giving permission to the
respondents No.12 to 14 to open up their liaison offices in India.
22.
Mr.Sakhare, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
RBI submitted that the permission given by RBI to the respondents No.12 to
14 was within the scope and ambit of powers vested in RBI under the 1973
Act. He submitted that Section 29(1)(a) of the 1973 Act empowers RBI to
grant permission to a resident outside India to establish a branch office or a
place of business in India. He submitted that RBI is not concerned with the
provisions contained in the 1961 Act and in any event, the permission
granted by RBI is only to establish a liaison / representative office to act as a
communication channel between the overseas principal and parties in India.
23.
Counsel for RBI further submitted that the respondents No.12
Judgment
- W.P.152611995
to 14 had stated in their application that they wish to undertake liaison

activities in India and further specifically stated that they will not appear in
Indian Courts and shall not practice Indian law.
Since the permission
granted by RBI was limited to granting permissions to overseas entities for

undertaking specific activities enumerated in the permission letter and the
said permission was not to be construed in any way regularizing or
validating any irregularities or lapses under any other law, it cannot be said
that the permission granted by RBI to respondents No.12 to 14 is illegal or
contrary to law.
Moreover, the permission granted was subject to the
respondents No.12 to 14 submitting annual report. In fact, on perusal of the

particulars furnished by the respondent NO.13,it was prima facie found that
the respondent No.13 has acted contrary to and beyond the scope of
permission granted by RBI and accordingly a show-cause notice was issued
to the respondent No.13. On receiving the reply to the show-cause notice
and on being satisfied that the respondent No.13 was functioning within the
ambit of the permission granted by the RBI, the show-cause notice was
dropped. As the permission granted by RBI does not extend to the practise
of profession of law in India, Counsel for RBI submitted that the permission
granted by RBI to open liaison offices in India cannot be faulted.
24.
Mr.Seervai, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
one of the main contesting foreign law firm, namely the respondent No.12,
submitted that the argument of the petitioner that the permission granted by
RBI to the foreign law firms to establish liaison offices in India is in violation
of the 1961 Act, is completely misconceived because, the 1961 Act is
enacted by the Parliament in exercise of the powers conferred under entry
"
77 and 78 in List I to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which relate

to constitution and organization of the Supreme Court and the High Courts
as well as the persons entitled to practice before the Supreme Court and
before the High Courts. Since the source of power in enacting the 1961 Act
relates to the persons entitled to practise before the Supreme Court and
before the High Court, it is clear that the 1961 Act would apply to persons
practising litigious matters before the Supreme Court and the High Courts
and the said Act would not apply to the persons practising in non-litigious
matters. He submitted that unless a legislation is enacted to regulate the
persons practising in non-litigious matters by invoking entry 26 in List III to
the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which deals with legal, medical
and other profession, it cannot be said that the persons practising in nonlitigious matters are governed by the provisions of the 1961 Act.
25.
Strong reliance was placed by Mr.Seervai on the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of D.N. Mohindroo VIs. Bar Council reported in
AIR 1968 S.C. 888, (see page 893) wherein it is inter alia held thus :-
"10.
..
Though the Act relates to the legal
practitioners, in its pith and substance it is an enactment
which concerns itself with the qualifications, enrolment, right
to practise and discipline of the advocates. As provided by
the Act once a person is enrolled by anyone of the State Bar
Councils, he becomes entitled to practise in all courts
including the Supreme Court. As aforesaid, the Act creates
one common Bar, all its members being of one class,
namely, advocates. Since all those who have been enrolled
have a right to practise in the Supreme Court and the High
Courts, the Act is a piece of legislation which deals with
persons entitled to practise before the Supreme Court and
the High Courts. Therefore, the Act must be held to fall_
within entries 77 and 78 of List I. As the power of legislation
relating to those entitled to practise in the Supreme Court
and the High Courts is carved out from the general power to
legislate in relation to legal and other professions in entry 26
of List "I, it is an error to say, as the High Court did, that the
Act is a composite legislation partly falling under entries 77
and 78 of List I and partly under entry 26 of List "I."
(emphasis supplied)
In the light of the aforesaid judgment
of the Apex Court,
learned counsel for respondent No.12 submitted that the question raised in
the petition being squarely covered against the petitioner, the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
26.
Mr.Seervai further submitted that the 1961 Act is enacted to
amend and consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners and to provide
for the Constitution of Bar Councils and an All-India Bar. He submitted that
the foreign law firm like the respondent No.12 had neither sought permission
nor permission has been granted by RBI to the respondent No.12 to practise
the profession of law as legal practitioners or advocates. Permission has
been granted by RBI to open a liaison office in India which is within the
domain of RBI under the 1973 Act.
Therefore, in the facts of the present
case, reference to the 1961 Act is wholly misconceived.
27.
Relying on two decisions of the Apex Court one in the case of
the Bar Council Vis. The State of U.P. reported in (1973) 1
sec
261 and
another in the case of In Re lily Isabel Thomas reported in AIR 1964 SC

855, Mr.Seervai submitted that the right to practise the profession of law
under the 1961 Act is relatable only to the advocates
practising the
profession of law before Courts / Tribunals / any other authority and the said
Act has no application to the persons practising in non-litigious matters.
Judgment
- W.P.1S26/199S
Mr.Seervai submitted that if the contention of the petitioner that the 1961 Act
applies both to persons practicing in non-litigious matters as well as litigious
matters practised by persons before the Supreme Courts and High Courts is
accepted, then it would render the Advocates Act, 1961 ultra vires the
Constitution, because the 1961 Act is enacted in exercise of powers vested
in the Central Government under entry 77 and 78 in List of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution which specifically provides for enacting law
relating to persons practising in the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
Therefore, the construction put forth by the petitioner which renders the
1961 Act ultra vires the construction cannot be accepted.
28.
Mr.Seervai further submitted that Section 29 of the 1961 Act is
merely declaratory in nature and it merely provides that from the appointed
day there shall be only one class of persons entitled to practise the
profession of law. Section 29 does not confer the right to practise the
profession of law. It is Section 33 which provides that advocates enrolled
under the 1961 Act alone are entitled to practise in any Court or before any
authority. Moreover, Section 49(1)(ag) and Section 49(1)(ah) of the 1961
Act, empower the Bar Council of India to make rules relating to the class or
category of persons entitled to be enrolled as advocates and the conditions
subject to which an advocate shall have the right to practise. Therefore, the
1961 Act which applies to persons practising in litigious matters before the
Supreme Court / High Courts / Tribunals cannot be applied to persons
practising in non-litigious matters.
29.
In support of the above contentions, Mr.Seervai placed reliance
"
on various decisions and for the sake of convenience, relevant portions of

the respective judgments are extracted herein below.
In the case of
Sushma Suri VIs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Another
reported in (1999) 1 Supreme Court Cases 330, the Apex Court inter alia
held thus :-
"6.
If a person on being enrolled as an advocate ceases
to practise law and takes up an employment. such a person
can by no stretch of imagination be termed'as an advocate.
However, if a person who is on the rolls of any Bar Council is
engaged either by employment or otherwise of the Union or
the State or any corporate body or person practises before a
court as an advocate for and on behalf of such Government,
corporation or authority or person, the question is whether
such a person also answers the description of an advocate
under the Act. That is the precise question arising for our
consideration in this case.
9.
.
The expression "members of the Bar" in the
relevant Rule would only mean that particular class of
persons who are actually practising in courts of law as
aleaders or advocates. In a very general sense an advocate
is a person who acts or pleads for another in a court and if a
Public Prosecutor or a Government Counsel is on the rolls of
the Bar Council and is entitled to practise under the Act, he
answers the description of an advocate.
10.
............. The test. therefore. is not whether such
person is engaged on terms of salary or by payment of
remuneration. but whether he is engaged to act or plead on
its behalf in a court of law as an advocate. In that event the
terms of engagement will not matter at all. What is of
essence is as to what such law officer engaged by the
Government does - whether he acts or pleads in court on
behalf of his employer or otherwise. If he is not acting or
pleading on behalf of his employer, then he ceases to be an
advocate. If the terms of engagement are such that he does
not have to act or plead, but does other kinds of work, then
he becomes a mere employee of the Government or the
body corporate. Therefore, the Bar Council of India has
understood the expression "advocate" as one who is actually
practising before courts which expression would include
even those who are law officers appointed as such by the
Government or body corporate."
(emphasis supplied)
"
30.
In the case of V. Sudeer VIs. Bar Council of India reported in
(1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases176, the Apex Court inter alia held thus :"25. Section 49(1)(ag) also deals with the class or
category of persons entitled to be enrolled as advocates.
Thus, by the said provision, the Bar Council of India in
exercise of its rule-making power can add to the class of
persons contemplated by Section 29 by enlarging the said
class of advocates entitled to practise as full-fledged
advocates. Entitlement to practise the profession of Law
necessarily means full-fledged entitlement to plead and
argue cases of their clients before the courts of law. There
cannot be any truncated right to practise the profession of
Law which is sought to be culled out by Shri P.P. Rao,
learned Senior Counsel for the Bar Council of India on a
conjoint reading of Sections 29 and 49(1)(ag) of the Act."
(emphasis supplied)
31.
The Apex Court in the case of Indian Council of legal Aid
and Advice VIs. Bar Council of India reported in (1995) 1
see
732, has
inter alia held thus:

"3.
It will be seen from the above provisions that unless a
person is enrolled as an advocate by a State Bar Council, he
shall have no right to practise in a court of law or before any
other Tribunal or authority. Once a person fulfils the
requirements of Section 24 for enrolment, he becomes
entitled to be enrolled as an advocate and on such enrolment
he acquires a right to practise as stated above. Having thus
acquired a right to practise he incurs certain obligations in
regard to his conduct as a member of the noble profession.
The bar Councils are enjoined with the duty to act as
sentinels of professional conduct and must ensure that the
dignity and purity of the profession are in no way
undermined.
Its job is to uphold the standards of
professional conduct and etiquette. Thus, every State Bar
Council and the Bar Council of India has a public duty to
perform, namely, to ensure that the monopoly of practice
granted under the Act is not misused or abused by a person
who is enrolled as an advocate. The Bar Councils have
been created at the State level as well as the Central level
not only to protect the rights, interests and privileges of its_
members but also to protect the litigating public by ensuring

that high and noble traditions are maintained so that the_
purity and dignity of the profession are not jeopardized. It is
generally believed that members of the legal profession have
certain social obligations, e.g., to render "pro bono publico"
service to the poor and the underprivileged. Since the duty
of a lawyer is to assist the court in the administration of
justice, the practice of law has a public utility flavour and,
therefore, he must strictly and scrupulously abide by the
Code of Conduct behoving the noble profession and must
not indulge in any activity which may tend to lower the image
of the profession in society. That is why the functions of the
Bar Council include the laying down of standards of
professional conduct and etiquette which advocates must
follow to maintain the dignity and purity of the profession."
(emphasis supplied)
32.
The Apex Court in the case of Jamilabai VIs. Shankarlal
reported in AIR 1975 S.C. 2202, has inter alia held thus :......... There is no statutory provision decisive of this
issue (whether a pleader can compromise a Suit in the
interest of his client, though the vakalatnama is silent) and
we have to garner the principles from various factors like the
status and significance of the legal profession in society, the
wider powers conferred on lawyers as distinguished from
ordinary agents on account of the triune facets of the role of
an advocate vis-a-vis the client, the Court and the public and
its traditions and canons of professional ethics and etiquette.
Above all, the paramount consideration that the Bench and
the Bar form a noble and dynamic partnership geared to the
great social goal of administration of justice puts the lawyer
appearing in the Court in a class by himself and to compare
him with an ordinary agent may be to lose sight of the lawyer
as engineer of the rule of law in society."
(bracketed portion is supplied)
33.
The Apex Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar VIs.Arabinda
Bose reported in AIR 1952 S.C. 369, held thus :-
"6.
A brief historical survey of the functions, rights and
duties of legal practitioners in this country may facilitate
appreciation of the contentions of the parties. Before the
Indian High Courts Act of 1861 (24 and 25 Vict. Ch. 104)
was enacted, there were, in the territories subject to the
British rule in India, Supreme Courts exercising jurisdiction

mainly in the Presidency Towns, and Sudder Courts
exercising jurisdiction over the mufassil. Though the
Supreme Courts were given, by the Charter Acts and the
Letters Patent establishing them, power to enroll Advocates
who could be authorized by the rules to act as well as to
plead in the Supreme Courts rules were made empowering
Advocates only to appear and plead and not to act, while
Attorneys were enrolled and authorised to act and not to
plead. In the Sudder Courts and the Courts subordinate
thereto, pleaders who obtained a certificate from those
Courts were allowed both the act and plead.
15.
It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume that the
practice of law in this country generally involves the exercise
of both the functions of acting and pleading on behalf of a
litigant party: in other words, the Bar in India, generally
speaking is organised as a single agency. Accordingly.
when the Legislature confers upon an advocate "the right to
practise" in a Court, it is legitimate to understand that
expression as authorising him to appear and plead as well
as to act on behalf of suitors in that Court, It is true that the
word "practise" used in relation to a given profession means
simply the pursuit of that profession and involves the
exercise of the functions which are ordinarily exercised by
the members of the profession. But it seems to be fallacious
to relate that expression, as applied to an advocate, either,
on the one hand, to the Court in which the advocate is
enrolled or, on the other, to the Court in which he seeks to
exercise the statutory right conferred on him. It must, in our
opinion, be related to the general constitution of the bar in
India as a single agency in dealing with the litigant public, a
system which prevails all over this vast country except in
two small pockets where a dual agency imported from
England was maintained, owning, as we have seen, to
historical reasons.
16. We are accordingly unable to accept the suggestion
that because the advocates of the Supreme Court are not,
under the Rules of that Court, entitled to act, the word
"practise" as used by Parliament in s. 2 must be understood
in the restricted sense of appearing and pleading only.
Parliament was. of course, aware that the right of the
advocates of the Supreme Court to practise in that Court
was confined only to appearing and pleading. but the object
of s. 2 was to confer upon a designated body of persons,
namely, the advocates of the Supreme Court, a right to
practise in other Courts, viz. the various High Courts in
India, whether or not they were already enrolled in such
Courts. This statutory right, which is conferred on the
Supreme Court Advocates in relation to other Courts and
Judgment
- W.P.152611995
which they did not have before, cannot, as a matter of

construction, be taken to be controlled by reference to what
they are allowed or not allowed to do in the Supreme Court
under the Rules of that Court. Such Rules are liable to be
altered at any time in exercise of the rule-making power
conferred by Art. 145 of the Constitution."
(emphasis supplied)
34.
This Court in the case of Mu/chand Gu/abchand VIs.
Mukund S. Bhide reported in AIR 1952 Bom 296, has inter alia held thus :''Therefore, his right to practise is controlled by this
important provision that any other law for the time being in
force may restrict or take away his right. Therefore, if the
Co-operative Societies Act were to provide that an advocate
of the High Court of Bombay shall not practise before the
arbitral tribunal set up under that Act, then the right of the
advocate will be circumscribed by the provisions of that law.
It should be remembered that it is not the fact that a man
has passed a law examination or has acquired a law degree
that entitles him to practise in Courts of law; his right to
practise depends upon his being enrolled as an advocate
and he is enrolled as an advocate on terms and conditions
laid down in the Bar Councils Act. Therefore, as I said
before, his very charter which entitles him to practise lays
down conditions and limitations, and one of the conditions
and limitations is that he can only practise before such
tribunals as the law permits him and he may not practise
before such tribunals as the law lays down as being
prohibited to lawyers."
(emphasis supplied)
In the light of the aforesaid decisions, counsel for respondent
No.12 is submitted that the expression "right to practise the profession of
law" is restricted to the practise in litigious matters and cannot be extended
to the persons practising in non-litigious matters.
35.
Mr.Seervai further submitted that prior to the 1961 Act, the
Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 was enacted with a view to consolidate and
amend the law relating to the legal practitioners entitled to practice in certain
Courts in the Provinces of India. The 1961 Act was enacted by repealing the
1926 Act. Therefore, in the absence of any intention to the contrary, it must
be held that the 1926 Act as well as the 1961 Act provide for the rights and
obligations of the legal practitioners practising the profession of law before
the Courts / Tribunals / other authorities. The submission is that when a
statute is repealed and re-enacted and words in the repealed statute are
reproduced in the new statute, then, ordinarily, the words in the re-enacted
statute should be interpreted in the sense the said words in the repealed Act
were judicially interpreted. In support of the above contention, he relied on a
decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madras VIs. Gannon
Dunkerley & Co. reported in AIR 1958 S.C. 580 and a decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Bengal Immunity Co. Limited VIs. State of Bihar
reported in AIR 1955 S.C. 661.
36.
Alternatively, Mr.Seervai submitted that even assuming that the
expression 'to practice the profession of law' in Section 29 of the 1961 Act
applies to persons practising in litigious matters as well as non-litigious
matters, then and in that event, the liaison activities carried on by the
respondent No.12 cannot be said to fall in any of the above two categories,
because the activity carried by their liaison office in India was only a liaison
activity and not an activity covered under the 1961 Act and, therefore, the
permission granted by RBI under Section 29 of the 1973 Act to carryon the
liaison activities in India cannot be faulted.
37.
Lastly, Mr.Seervai submitted that the respondent No.12 has
performed the liaison activities within the frame work of the terms and
conditions imposed by the RBI. The report submitted by the Officers of RBI
bear testimony to the claim of respondent NO.12. He submitted that the
argument that the respondent No.12 ought to have applied for permission
under Section 30 of the 1973 Act is without any merit because that section
requires foreign nationals to take prior permission before taking up
employment etc. in India wherein the foreign exchange acquired would be
required to be remitted outside India. In the present case, the foreign law
firms were not taking up any employment in India and they were not seeking
to carryon trade or business in India which involved forwarding remittances
outside India. Therefore, the respondent No.12 could not have applied for
permission under Section 30 of the 1973 Act. For all the aforesaid reasons,
Mr.Seervai submitted that the permission granted by RBI to open liaison
offices in India under Section 29 of the 1973 Act was valid and to such a
case the 1961 Act would not be applicable.
38.
Counsel for respondent No.13 and 14 while adopting the
arguments advanced by Mr.Seervai, submitted that the respondent No.13

and 14 have not violated any of the conditions imposed by RBI and,
therefore, the activities carried on by respondent Nos.13 & 14 being within
the framework of the permission granted by R.B.I., the writ petition is liable
to be dismissed.
39.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions.
40.
In the present case, the core dispute is with reference to the
permission granted by RBI to the respondents No.12 to 14 to open their

liaison offices in India under Section 29 of the 1973 Act. The respondent No.
12 to 14 are the foreign law firms practising the profession of law in U.K. I
U.S.A. and other parts of the word. However, even after establishing the
liaison offices in India, the said foreign law firms have not enrolled
themselves as advocates under the 1961Act.
41.
The first question to be considered herein is, what were the
liaison activities carried on by the foreign law firms in India? In the affidavit
in reply, these foreign law firms have stated that they have opened the
liaison offices in India mainly to act as a coordination and communications
channel between the head office I branch offices and its clients in and
outside India. Since the Head Office and the branch offices of the foreign
law firms are engaged in providing various legal services to their clients
carrying on wide range of businesses all over the world, the liaison activity
carried on in India, namely, to act as a coordination and communication
channel would obviously be relating to providing legal services to the clients.
The respondent No.12 has further claimed in its affidavit in reply that their
liaison activity inter alia included providing "office support services for
lawyers of those offices working in India on India related matters" and also
included drafting documents, reviewing and providing comments on
documents, conducting negotiations and advising clients on international
standards and customary practice relating to the client's transaction etc. It is
contended by the respondent No.12 to 14 that they never had and has no
intention to practise the profession of law in India. Thus, from the affidavit in
reply, it is evident that the liaison activities were nothing but practising the
Judgment
- W.P.152611995
profession of law in non litigious matters.
42.
The question then to be considered is, whether the foreign law
firms could carryon the practise in non litigious matters in India by obtaining
permission from R.B.I. under section 29 of the 1973 Act? Section 29 of the
1973 Act provides that without the permission of RBI, no person resident
outside India or a person who is not a citizen of India but is resident in India
or a Company which is not incorporated in India shall establish in India a
branch office or other place of business, for carrying any activity of a trading,
commercial or industrial nature. Foreign law firms engaged in practising the
profession of law in the foreign countries cannot be said to be engaged in
industrial, commercial and trading activities.
The liaison activities of
respondent Nos. 12 to 14 in India being activities relating to the profession of

law, no permission could be granted to the foreign law firms under section
29 of the 1973 Act. The Apex Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board
Vis. Shiv Narayan reported in (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 283 has
held that there is a fundamental distinction between the professional activity

and the activity of a commercial character. The Apex Court has further held
that to compare the legal profession with that of trade and business would
be totally incorrect. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, the RBI
could not have granted permission to carryon the practise in non litigious
matters by opening liaison offices in India under Section 29 of the 1973 Act.
43.
It is not the case of the foreign law firms that the activity carried
on by their liaison offices in India are different from the activity carried on by
them at their head office and the branch offices world over. In fact, it is the
__J
"
specific case of respondents No.12 to 14 that the main activity at their liaison
offices in India was to act as a coordination and communication channel
between the head office / branch office and its clients in and outside India.
Thus, the activity carried on by the foreign law firms at their Head Office,
branch offices and liaison offices in India were inextricately linked to the
practise in non litigious matters. Section 29 of the 1973 Act relates to
granting permission for business purposes and not for professional purposes
and, therefore, the RBI could not have granted permission to these foreign
law firms under Section 29 of the 1973 Act.
44.
It appears that before approaching RBI, these foreign law firms
had approached the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB for short) a
High Powered body established under the New Industrial Policy seeking
their approval in the matter. The FIPB had rejected the proposal submitted
by the foreign law firms. Thereafter, these law firms sought approval from
RBI and RBI granted the approval in spite of the rejection of FIPB. Though
specific grievance to that effect is made in the petition, the RBI has chosen
not to deal with those grievances in its affidavit in reply. Thus, in the present
case, apparently, the stand taken by RBI & FIPB are mutually contradictory.
45.
In any event, the fundamental question to be considered herein
is, whether the foreign law firms namely respondent Nos.12 to 14 by

opening liaison offices in India could carryon the practise in non litigious
matters without being enrolled as Advocates under the 1961 Act?
46.
Before dealing with the rival contentions on the above
question, we may quote Sections 29, 30, 33 and 35 of the 1961 Act, which
read thus:
"29. Advocates to be the only recognised class of
persons entitled to practise law.. Subject to the provisions
of this Act and any rules made thereunder, there shall, as
from the appointed day, be only one class of persons entitled
to practise the profession of law, namely, advocates.
(not brought into force so far)
30.
Right of advocates to practise. - Subject to
provisions of this Act, every advocate whose name is
entered in the State roll shall be entitled as of right to
practise throughout the territories to which this Act extends, (i)
in all Courts including the Supreme Court;
(ii)
before any tribunal or person legally authorized

to take evidence;
(iii)
before any other authority or person before

whom such advocate by or under any law for
the time being in force entitled to practise.
33.
Advocates alone entitled to practise. - Except as
otherwise provided in this Act or in any other law for the time
being in force, no person shall, on or after the appointed day,
be entitled to practise in any Court or before any authority or
person unless he is enrolled as an advocate under this Act."
35. Punishment of advocates for misconduct - (1) Where
on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council
has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been
guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the
case for disposal to its disciplinary committee.
(i-A) The State Bar Council may, either of its own motion or
on application made to it by any person interested, withdraw
a proceeding pending before its disciplinary committee and
direct the inquiry to be made by any other disciplinary
committee of that State Bar Council.
(2) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council [***]
shall fix a date for the hearing of the case and shall cause a
notice thereof to be given to the advocate concerned and to
the Advocate-General of the State.
(3) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council after
giving the advocate concerned and the Advocate-General an

opportunity of being heard, may make any of the following
orders,namely:(a) dismiss the complaint or, where the proceedings
were initiated at the instance of the State Bar Council,
direct that the proceedings be filed;
(b) reprimand the advocate;
(c) suspend the advocate from practice or such period
as it may deem fit;
(d) remove the name of the advocate from the State roll
of advocates.
(4) Where an advocate is suspended from practice under
clause (c) of sub-section (3), he shall, during the period of
suspension, be debarred from practising in any Court or
before any authority or person in India.
(5) Where any notice is issued to the Advocate-General under
sub-section (2), the Advocate-General may appear before the
disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council either in
person or through any advocate appearing on his behalf.
Explanation- In this section, (section 37 and section 38), the
expressions "Advocate-General" and "Advocate-General of

the State" shall, in relation to the Union territory of Delhi, mean
the Additional Solicitor General of India.
47.
The argument of the foreign law firms is that section 29 of the
1961 Act is declaratory in nature and the said section merely specifies the
persons who are entitled to practise the profession of law. According to the
respondent Nos. 12 to 14, the expression 'entitled to practise the profession
of law' in section 29 of the 1961 Act does not specify the field in which the
profession of law could be practised. It is section 33 of the 1961 Act which
provides that advocates alone are entitled to practise in any Court or before
any authority or person. Therefore, according to respondent Nos.12 to 14
the 1961 Act applies to persons practising as advocates before any Court /
authority
and not to persons practising in non litigious matters. The
question, therefore, to be considered is, whether the 1961 Act applies only to
persons practising in litigious matters, that is, practising before Court and
other authorities?
48.
In the statements of Objects & Reasons for enacting the 1961
Act, it is stated that the main object of the Act is to establish All India Bar
Council and a common roll of advocates and Advocate on the common roll
having a right to practise in any part of the country and in any Court,
including the Supreme Court. Thus, from the Statement of Objects and
Reasons, it is seen that the 1961 Act is intended to apply to (one) persons
practising the profession of law in any part of the country and (two) persons
practising the profession of law in any Court including the Supreme Court.
Thus, from the statement of objects and reasons it is evident that the 1961
Act is intended to apply not only to the persons practising before the Courts
but it is also intended to apply to persons who are practising in non litigious
matters outside the Court.
49.
Apart from the above, Section 29 of the 1961 Act specifically
provides is that from the appointed day, there shall be only one class of
persons entitled to practise the profession of law, namely Advocates. It is
apparent that prior to the 1961 Act there were different classes of persons
entitled to practise the profession of law and from the appointee day all
these class of persons practising the profession of law, would form one
class, namely, advocates. Thus, section 29 of the 1961 Act clearly provides
that from the appointed day only advocates are entitled to practise the
profession of law whether before any Court / authority or outside the Court
by way of practise in non litigious matters.
50.
Section 33 of the 1961 Act is a prohibitory section in the sense
that it debars any person from appearing before any Court or authority
unless he is enrolled as an advocate under the 1961 Act. The bar contained
in section 33 of the 1961 Act has nothing to do with the persons entitled to
be enrolled as advocates under section 29 of the 1961 Act. A person
enrolled as an advocate under section 29 of the 1961 Act, mayor may not
be desirous of appearing before the Courts.
He may be interested in
practising only in non litigious matters. Therefore, the bar under section 33
from appearing in any Court (except when permitted by Court under Section
32 of the 1961 Act or any other Act) unless enrolled as an advocate does not
bar a person from being enrolled as an advocate under section 29 of the
1961 Act for practising the profession of law in non litigious matters. The
Apex Court in the case of EX-Capt. Harish Uppal (supra) has held that the
right to practise is the genus of which the right to appear and conduct cases
in the Court may be a specie. Therefore, the fact that section 33 of the 1961
Act provides that advocates alone are entitled to practise before any Court /
authority it cannot be inferred that the 1961 Act applies only to persons
practising in litigious matters and would not apply to person practising in non
litigious matters.
51.
It was contended that the 1961 Act does not contain any penal
provisions for breaches committed by a person practicing in non-litigious

matter and, therefore, the 1961 Act cannot apply to persons practising in
non-litigious matters. There is no merit in this contention, because, section
Judgment
- W.P.1S26/199S
35 of the 1961 Act provides punishment to an advocate who is found to be

guilty of professional or other misconduct. The fact that section 45 of the
1961 Act provides imprisonment for persons illegally practising in Courts and
before other authorities, it cannot be said that the 1961 Act does not contain
provisions to deal with the persons found guilty of misconduct while
practising in non litigious matters. Once it is held that the persons entitled to
practise the profession of law under the 1961 Act covers the persons
practising the profession of law in litigious matters as well as non-litigious
matters, then, the penal provisions contained in section 35 of the 1961 Act
would apply not only to persons practising in litigious matter, but would also
apply to persons practising the profession of law in non-litigious matters.
The very object of the 1961 Act and the Rules framed by the Bar Council of
India are to ensure that the persons practising the profession of law whether
in litigious matters or in non litigious matters, maintain high standards in
professional conduct and etiquette and, therefore, it cannot be said that the
persons practising in non litigious matters are not governed by the 1961 Act.
52.
Strong reliance was placed by the counsel for the respondent
No.12 on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of O.N. Mohindroo
(supra) in support of his contention that the 1961 Act applies only to persons
practising the profession of law before Courts / Tribunals / other authorities.
It is true that the Apex Court in the above case has held that the 1961 Act is
enacted by the Parliament in exercise of its powers under entry 77 and 78 in
List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. However, the fact that
entry 77 and 78 in List I refers to the persons practising before the Supreme
Court and the High Courts, it cannot be said that the 1961 Act is restricted to
the persons practising only before the Supreme Court and High Courts.
Practising the profession of law involves a larger concept whereas,
practising before the Courts is only a part of that concept. If the literal
construction put forth by the respondents is accepted then, the Parliament
under entry 77 & 78 in List I of the Seventh Schedule to make legislation
only in respect of the advocates practising before the Supreme Court / High
Courts and the Parliament cannot legislate under that entry in respect of
advocates practising before the District Courts / Magistrate's Courts / other
Courts / Tribunals / authorities and consequently, the 1961 Act to the extent
it applies to advocates practising in Courts other than the High Courts and
Supreme Court would be ultra vires the Constitution.
Such a narrow
construction is unwarranted because, once the Parliament invokes its power

to legislate on advocates practising the profession of law, then the entire
field relating to advocates would be open to the Parliament to legislate and
accordingly the 1961 Act has been enacted to cover the entire field. In any
event, the question as to whether the persons practising the profession of
law exclusively in non-litigious matters are covered under the 1961 Act, or
not was not an issue directly or indirectly considered by the Apex Court in
the case of a.N. Mohindroo (supra). Therefore, the decision of the Apex
Court in the above case does not support the case of the
contesting
respondents.
53.
Similarly, in all other cases relied upon by the counsel for the
contesting respondents, the question as to whether a person, practising in

non-litigious matters was required to be enrolled as advocates under the
1961 Act was not raised directly nor indirectly in all these cases. Therefore,
Judgment - W.P.lS26/199S
all those decisions relied upon by the counsel for the respondents are
distinguishable on facts.
54.
It is not the case of the respondents that in India individuals /
law firms / companies are practising the profession of law in non-litigious

matters without being enrolled as advocates under the 1961 Act. It is not
even the case of the respondents that in the countries in which their head
office as well as their branch offices are situated, persons are allowed to
practice the profession of law in non-litigious matters without being
subjected to the control of any authority. In these circumstances, when the
Parliament has enacted the 1961 Act to regulate the persons practising the
profession of law, it would not be correct to hold that the 1961 Act is
restricted to the persons practising in litigious matters and that the said Act
does not apply to persons practising in non litigious matters. There is no
reason to hold that in India the practise in non litigious matters is
unregulated.
55.
It was contended by the counsel for Union of India that if it is
held that the 1961 Act applies to persons practising in non-litigious matters,
then no bureaucrat would be able to draft or give any opinion in non-litigious
matters without being enrolled as an advocate. There is no merit in the
above argument, because, there is a distinction between a bureaucrat
drafting or giving opinion, during the course of his employment and a law
firm or an advocate drafting or giving opinion to the clients on professional
basis.
Moreover, a bureaucrat drafting documents or giving opinion is
answerable to his superiors, whereas, a law firm or an individual engaged in
Judgment
- W.P.1S26/199S
non litigious matters, that is, drafting documents / giving opinion or rendering
any other legal assistance are answerable to none. To avoid such anomaly,
the 1961 Act has been enacted so as to cover all persons practising the
profession of law be it in litigious matters or in non-litigious matters within the
purview of the 1961Act.
56.
The argument that the 1961 Act and the Bar Councils
constituted thereunder have limited role to play has been time and again
negatived by the Apex Court. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Bar
Council of India Vis. Board of Management, Dayanand College of Law
reported in (2007) 2 SCC 202 held thus:" It may not be correct to say that the Bar Council of India is
totally unconcerned with the legal education, though primarily
legal education may also be within the province of the
universities. But, as the apex professional body, the Bar
Council of India is concerned with the standards of the legal
profession and the equipment of those who seek entry into that
profession. The Bar Council of India is also thus concerned
with the legal education in the country. Therefore, instead of
taking a pendantic view of the situation, the State Government
and the recommending authority are expected to ensure that
the requirement set down by the Bar Council of India is also
complied with. "
Thus, when efforts are being made to see that the legal profession
stand tall in this fast changing world, it would be improper to hold that the
1961 Act and the Bar Council constituted thereunder have limited role to
play in the field relating to practising the profession of law.
57.
It is not in dispute that once a person is enrolled as an
advocate, he is entitled to practise the profession of law in litigious matters
as well as non-litigious matters. If the argument of the respondents that the

1961 Act is restricted to the persons practising the profession of law in
litigious matters is accepted, then an advocate found guilty of misconduct in
performing his duties while practising in non-litigious matters cannot be
punished under the 1961 Act. Similarly,where an advocate who is debarred
for professional misconduct can merrily carry on the practise in non-litigious
matters on the ground that the 1961 Act is not applicable to the persons
practising the profession of law in non litigious matters. Such an argument
which defeats the object of the 1961 Act cannot be accepted.
58.
It may be noted that Rule 6(1) in Chapter III Part VI of the Bar
Council of India Rules framed under section 49(1) (ah) of the 1961 Act
provides that an advocate whose name has been removed by an order of
the Supreme Court or a High Court or the Bar Council as the case may be,
shall not be entitled to practise the profession of law either before the Court
and authorities mentioned under section 30 of the 1961 Act, or in chambers,
or otherwise. The above rule clearly shows that the chamber practise,
namely, practise in non litigious matters is also within the purview of the
1961 Act.
59.
Counsel for the Union of India had argued that the Central
Government is actively considering the issue relating to the foreign law firms
practising the profession of law in India. Since the said issue is pending
before the Central Government for more than 15 years, we direct the Central
Government to take appropriate decision in the matter as expeditiously as
possible. Till then, the 1961 Act as enacted would prevail, that is, the
persons practising the profession of law whether in litigious matters or non
litigious matters would be governed by the 1961 Act and the Bar Councils
framed thereunder, apart from the powers of the Court to take appropriate
action against advocates who are found guilty of professional misconduct.
60.
For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that in the facts of the
present case, the RBI was not justified in granting permission to the foreign
law firms to open liaison offices in India under Section 29 of the 1973 Act.
We further hold that the expressions to practise the profession of law' in
I
section 29 of the 1961 Act is wide enough to cover the persons practising in
litigious matters as well as persons practising in non litigious matters and,
therefore, to practise in non litigious matters in India, the respondent Nos.12
to 14 were bound to follow the provisions contained in the 1961 Act. The
petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
Chief Justice
J.P. Devadhar, J.

[SCRf Order XXII Rule 3(1) (a)]

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
OF 2015
(Arising from impugned final judgment and common order dated 16

December 2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Bombay in Writ Petition (C) No. 1526 of 1995).
Position of Parties
IN THE MAnER OF

A Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act,
Having its Registered Office at
B-4/8, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi- 110029
Through Secretary
In the
In this
High Court
Court
NOTA PARTY
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1.
2.
3.
4.
Bar Council of India, established under

the provisions of the Advocates Act 1961,
and having its office at 21 RouseAvenue,
Deendayal Upadhyaya Marg,
Respondent No.1
Respondent No.1
Bar Council of the State of Maharashtra

and Goa having its Office at High Court
Extension, Bombay - 400 032.
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.2
Bar Council of the State of Delhi, having

its address at High Court Building,
Respondent NO.3
Respondent NO.3
Bombay Incorporated Law Society, having

its office at High Court New Building, North
Wing, Bombay - 400 001.
Respondent No.4
Respondent No.4
....
.~
41
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Bar Association of the Supreme Court of

India, having its office at Supreme Court
Respondent No. 5
Respondent No.5
Bar Association of India, having its office

at 93, Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court
Respondent NO.6
Union of India,
Through Secretary Department of Home,
North Block, New Delhi 110001.
Respondent No. 7
Respondent No. 7
Reserve Bank of India, being a body

constituted under the provisions of the
Reserve Bank Act, 1934 having its
principal office at Horniman Circle,
Bombay - 400023.
Respondent No. 8
Respondent No. 8
Directorate of Enforcement, Reserve Bank

of India, having its office at Janmabhoomi
Chambers, New Marine Lines, Bombay.
Respondent No. 9
Respondent NO.9
Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry

of Finance, North Block, New Delhi.
Respondent No. 10
Respondent No. 10
Respondent No. 6
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,

Aaykar Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Bombay
Respondent No. 11
White & Case, a firm of lawyers having
its head office at 1155 Avenue of the
Americans, New York, New York 10036,
United States of America and with offices
at the Nirmal Building, Nariman POint,
Mumbai - 400 021.
Respondent No. 12
Respondent No. 12
Chadbourne & Parke, a law firm having

its head office at Rockefeller Plaza, New
York, New York 11012-0127, United States
of America and with offices at Hotel Maurya
Sheraton, new Delhi and/or at A-168,
Anand Niketan, New Delhi - 110 021.
Respondent No. 13
Respondent No. 13
Ashurst Morris Crisp having its principal

office at Broadwalla House,S, Apollo Street,
London EC 2A- 2HA and with offices at
6, Aurangazeb Road, D-202 Chanakyapuri,
New Delhi - 110 011 India
Respondent No. 14
Respondent No. 14
Respondent No. 11
I.
I.
15.
16.
Society of India Law Firms,

5-454, Greater Kailash, Part - II,
New Delhi 110048.
Respondent No. 15
Respondent No. 15
LAWYERSCOLLECTIVE,a Society registered

Under the Societies Registration Act and under
The Bombay Public Trusts act, having its office
At 4th Floor, Jalaram Jyot, 63, Janmabhoomi Marg,
Fort, Bombay - 400 001 (India)
Petitioner No. 1
Respondent No. 16
(All are Contesting Respondents)
TO
THE HON'BLETHE CHIEFJUSTICE
AND HIS COMPANIONJUDGESOF
THE SUPREMECOURTOF INDIA
HUMBLE PETITION
OF
PETITIONERABOVENAMED
THE
MOSTRESPECTFULLY
SHOWETH:
1. The Petitioner seeks leave to assail the impugned Judgment and final order
dated 16 December 2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Bombay in Writ Petition (C) No. 1526 of 1995 by way of a Special Leave
Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner is
aggrieved by the impugned order whereunder the Hon'ble High Court has
erroneously held that to practice the profession of law in India, a foreign law
firm has to fulfill the qualification of being enrolled as advocates under the
AdvocatesAct, 1961.
lA. It is submitted that no Letter Patents Appeal lies against the impugned
Judgment and final order dated 16 December 2009 passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (C) No. 1526 of 1995.
2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:
The following substantial questions of law arise for due consideration of
this Hon'ble Court:-
A. Whether there is any provision under the Advocates Act, 1961

and/or the Bar Council of India Rules whereby a 'Law Firm' is
required
to be registered for the purposes of practicing
the
profession of law in India or does the Advocates Act, 1961 only

regulate the individual lawyer?
B. Whether there is any restriction under the Advocates Act 1961

which restrictions an appropriately qualified Indian lawyer and/or
an Indian citizen, who is also appropriately qualified in a foreign
jurisdiction, to practice both Indian law as well as non-Indian law
of the jurisdiction where the person is so qualified?
C. Whether
there
Advocates Act,
is any restriction
1961 and/or
under the provisions of the
the Bar Council of India
Rules
whereby a Foreign Law Firm is prohibited from establishing an

office in India?
D. Whether there is any bar under the Advocates Act, 1961 and/or
the Bar Council of India Rules which prohibit the foreign law firms
and foreign
qualified
lawyers from
practicing
foreign
law on
permanent basis in India?

E. Whether there is any bar under the Advocates Act, 1961 and/or
the Bar Council of India Rules which prohibit the foreign law firms
from establishing their offices in India and employing/retaining
Indian qualified lawyers for practicing Indian Law in India?
F. Whether the impugned judgment and order of the Hon'ble High
Court of Bombay is anti-thesis
to the concept of reciprocity
contained under the provisions of Section 47 of the Advocates Act,

1961 and hence against the public policy of India?
G. Whether the impugned judgment and order of the Hon'ble High
Court of Bombay is premises on a specious reasoning by assuming
that the work conducted by foreign law firms in India would go
unregulated?
-.
~
H. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was justified in holding that the foreign
lawyers cannot come to India and conduct non-litigious practice in the field
of foreign law and/or on international legal issues, in light of the aims and
objects of the International Commercial Arbitration introduced in the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as also in the national interest of
India vide its policy to internationalize the fraternity of law in India?
3. DECLARATIONIN TERMSOF RULE3(2) :

The Petitioners state that no other petition seeking leave to appeal has
been filed by them against the impugned judgment and order.
4. DECLARATIONIN TERMSOF RULE5:

That Annexures P-1 to P-2 produced alongwith the Special Leave Petition
is true copies of the pleadings/documents which formed part of the
records of the case in the Court/Tribunal below against whose order the
leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.
5. GROUNDS:
Leaveto Appeal is sought for on the following amongst other grounds:
5.1.
It is submitted that one of the most effective methods to provide

international exposure to the lawyers in India is the entry of foreign law
firms into India. The Petitioner is thereby aggrieved by the findings of
the impugned judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay which
erroneously places a qualification on foreign firms to register as
advocates under the Advocates Act, when there is the no such
restriction under the Advocates Act or under the Bar Council of India
Rulesto prohibit a foreign law firm from establishing an office in India.
5.2.
Because the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay vide its impugned

order while upholding the bar to Foreign Law Firms, not
registered under the Advocates Act, 1961 from practicing in
India has proceeded on an incorrect reading of the concept of a
law firm. That a law firm is only a structure, sometimes in the
form of partnership, or a LLP, or a sole proprietorship under
whose umbrella each advocate, individually qualified, acts as a
lawyer. Collectively, a group of lawyers form a law firm and
operate under that banner. It is each individual lawyer who is
independently regulated. A law firm is only the umbrella under
which they act.
5.3.
It is further respectfully submitted that under the provisions of

Advocates Act, 1961, it is only the individual lawyers who are
required to be registered and not the law firms in India. Such
registered lawyers collectively form a law firm, which is only a
structure, sometimes in the form of partnership, an LLP, or a
sole proprietorship.
Hence, the necessary corollary to this
requirement would entail that even in respect of a foreign law

firm, it is not the 'firm' which is required to be registered under
the Advocates Act (as has been held by the High Court of
Bombay), but the individual lawyers of that firm seeking to
practice Indian law who are mandated to enroll under the
provisions of the Advocates Act.
5.4.
As such, law firms, whether they comprise of Indian qualified

lawyers and/or foreign qualified lawyers are based on a similar
model: it is the individual lawyers who are the qualified
persons. Therefore, a blanket restriction on foreign law firms to
establish offices in India under the pretext that they cannot be
enrolled as advocates under the Advocates Act is wholly
misconceived.
5.5.
Because the Courts have not delved upon the requirements

under the Advocates Act and the BCI Rules for registration of
lawyers based upon the demarcation of the practice of the

profession of law into the practice of Indian law and the
practice of foreign law. That the Courts have also not
considered the possibility of whether a foreign law firm could
have Indian qualified lawyers join the firm and practice Indian
law, whereas the foreign lawyers could practice only foreign
law.
5.6.
It is submitted that the practice of profession of law can be

demarcated into practice of Indian law and the practice of
foreign law. The Advocates Act as well as the BCI Rules ("BCI
Rules"),
do not prohibit the practice of foreign law within
India. The Advocates Act and the BCI Rules only apply to the
practice of Indian law, except in so far as set out at paragraphs
24 to 26 hereinbelow. It does not regulate the profession of
foreign law. The profession of foreign law is governed by laws
of each foreign state.
5.7.
Further, it is submitted that the Courts below have graveiy

faiied to consider an instance where an appropriately qualified
Indian
lawyer
and/or
an
Indian
citizen,
who
is also
appropriately qualified in a foreign jurisdiction, is entitled to

practice both Indian law as well as non-Indian law of the
jurisdiction where the person is so qualified. That a contrary
reading of the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961 and/or the Bar
Council Rules would amount to a violation of the Freedom to
practice any profession, or to carryon any occupation, trade or
business as guaranteed
under Article
19(1)(g)
of
the
Constitution of India.
5.B.
In relation to the practice of Indian law, the Petitioner states

that the practice of the profession of law in India is governed by
the provisions of the Advocates Act as well as by the BCI Rules.
Section 29 of the Act stipulates "advocates" as the only
recognized class of persons entitled to practice law.
An
"advocate" has been defined under Section 2 (a) of the Act to

mean "an advocate entered in any roll under the provisions of
this Act."
5.9.
The relevant provisions are set out below:
"24. Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State

roll.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, and the rules made
thereunder, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an
advocate on a State roll, if he fulfills the following conditions,
namely:-
(a)
he is a citizen of India:
Provided that subject to the other provisions contained in this Act,

a national of any other country may be admitted as an advocate
on a State roll, if citizens of India, duly qualified, are permitted to
practise law in that other country;
(b)
he has completed the age of twenty-one years;
(c)
he has obtained a degree in law-
(i)
before the 12th day of March, 1967, from any University in
the territory of India; or
(iii) after the 12th day of March, 1967, save as provided in subclause (iiia), after undergoing a three year course of study in law
from any University in India which is recognized for the purposes
of this Act by the Bar Council of India;
29. Advocates to be the only recognized class of persons

entitled to practice law.-Subject to the provisions of this Act and
any rules made thereunder, there shall, as from the appointed
day, be only one class of persons entitled to practice the
profession of law, namely, advocates.
30. Right of advocates to practise.-Subject to provisions of this

Act, every advocate whose name is entered in the State roll shall
be entitled as of right to practise throughout the territories to
which this Act extends,(i)
in all courts including the Supreme Court;
(ii)
before any tribunal or person legally authorised to take
evidence; and
(iii) before any other authority or person before whom such
advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force
entitled to practise.
33. Advocates alone entitled to practise. - Except as otherwise

provided in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force,
no person shall, on or after the appointed day, be entitled to
practise in any Court or before any authority or person unless he
is enrolled as an advocate under this Act."
5.10. The Petitioner submits that a reading of Sections 24, 29, 30 and
33 clearly shows that it deals with persons entitled to practice
the profession of Indian law. It does not restrict a person or a
duly qualified advocate from practicing 'a foreign law, if that
person is also duly qualified under the rules and regulations
governing the practice of such foreign law. It is respectfully
submitted that any other reading would be contrary to Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India because that would
amount to an unreasonable restriction on the citizens of India
from being permitted to qualify to practice under a foreign law
and not be able to conduct that practice while in India.
5.11. The Petitioner further states that the legal profession is

regulated by the State Bar Councils (the "SBes") established
under Section 3 of the Advocates Act, as well as the Bar Council
of India (the "Bel")
established under Section 4 of the
Advocates Act. Both these bodies, i.e. the SBCsas well as the
BCI have clearly demarcated responsibilities enumerated under
Sections 6 and 7 of the Advocates Act respectively.
Under
Section 6, the SBCs are responsible for, inter alia, admitting

advocates into its rolls as well as preparing and maintaining the
rolls. Under Section 7 of the Advocates Act, the BCI lays down
the standards of professional conduct and etiquette for
advocates, laying down procedure to be followed by the
disciplinary committee, supervise and control the SBCs,etc. It
is submitted that the BCI Rules also so not restrict the practice
of foreign law by duly qualified lawyers including citizen of
India, as that would be contrary to the provisions of the
Advocates Act and/or unconstitutional.
5.12. In fact within a foreign law firm, as is also the case with a
domestic law firm, it can only be a duly Indian qualified
advocate who would be entitled to practice Indian law.
Therefore, if a foreign law firm intends to practice Indian law, it
must necessarily eng~ge an Indian advocate for providing the
service in relation to Indian law.
Moreover, apart from the
practice of Indian law, the foreign law firm would also be

entitled to practice foreign law through its foreign law qualified
lawyers.
The Petitioner respectfully submits that there is no
prohibition either under the Advocates Act or under the BCI

Rules on such foreign qualified lawyers from practicing foreign
law and as such, the blanket prohibition on entry of such firms
in India is ante-thesis to the objectives of developing India on
the lines of a desired destination for conducting International
Commercial Arbitrations, and enhancing its economic growth,
where the economic growth is always intertwined to the growth
of the legal profession, which is the backbone of every
economy.
5.13. It is submitted that like the other professional service sectors,
India is currently possessedwith a vast amount of skilled legal
practitioners.
However, their exposure to international best
practices in the legal profession is currently being curtailed

and/or denied on the basis of a perception amongst certain
members of the legal fraternity that internationalizing the legal

profession in India would be detrimental to the Indian legal
profession. The Petitioner respectfully states that nothing could
be further from the truth: internationalizing the legal profession
in India will only assist in giving Indian lawyers far more
opportunities within the legal profession than those available
today and allow India to adopt international best practices in
the field of law. For example, it is respectfully submitted that
with the coming in of the large accountancy firms like KMPG,
Ernst & Young, Delloitte etc. the chartered accountancy
profession has expanded manifold in India and young Indian
accountants
now
have the
opportunity
of
working
in
multinational accountancy practices. The Petitioner respectfully

submits that there is no reason why the same would not
happen to the legal profession in India, if globalization of the
legal profession is allowed to take place in India.
5.14. In fact, it is respectfully submitted that the Union Economic

Survey 2012-13, which was published as a part of the Union
Budget 2012-13 reported that the legal services in India has
been growing at a steady rate of 8.2 per cent in the last few
years. It is also to be noted that India is home to the second
largest number of registered lawyers, second only to the United
States of America. The Union EconomicSurvey further notes:
"Chapter X
Legal Services
10.49 Legal services have been growing at a steady rate of
8.2 per cent in each of the years from 2005-6 to 2011-12.
The Indian legal profession today consists of approximately
1.2 million registered advocates, around 950 law schools,
and approximately 4 to 5 lakh law students across the
country. Every year, approximately 60,000-70,000 law
graduates join the legal profession in India. India is ranked
45, with a score of 4.5, in terms of judicial independence by
the
Global Competitiveness Report 2012-13, an
improvement from 51st rank in 2011-12 ....
10.50 The practice of law has however changed drastically

in the past few decades due to liberalization and associated
economic growth in India. With industrialization and FDI
inflows, the corporate legal sector in India has been
witnessing tremendous growth, as also legal process
outsourcing (LPO). In India the practice of law is governed
by the Advocates Act of 1961. Under this Act, foreign law
firms are not allowed to engage in practice of law in India.
Many foreign legal firms have set up liaison offices
(currently permitted under the law), while a few have
established referral relationships with Indian firms. Given
that India has benefited from opening up to foreign
competition in many other areas, and given that Indian
lawyers are offering services across the world (see below),
India should explore allowing foreign law firms greater
accessto the Indian market."
5.15. In fact, it is respectfully submitted that the Union Economic

Survey 2013-14, which was published as a part of the Union
Budget 2013-14 reported that the legal services in India has
been growing at a steady rate of 8.2 per cent in the last few
years. It is also to be noted that India is home to the second
largest number of registered lawyers, second only to the United
States of America. The Union EconomicSurvey further notes:
"Chapter X
Legal Services
10.39 Legal services have been growing at a steady rate of 8.2
percent in each of the years from 2005-06 to 2012-13. India is
ranked 40, with a score of 4.7, in terms of judicial
independence by the Global Competitiveness Report 2013-14,
an improvement from 45th rank in 2012-13. As regards
efficiency of the legal framework in settling disputes, India is
ranked 62nd, with a score of 3.8, a decline of three positions
from 59th rank a year before. India is ranked 48th when it
comes to the efficiency of the legal framework in chalienging
regulations, with a score of 3.8, an improvement from 52nd
position in the previous year.
10.40 The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA)

constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987
monitors and evaluates implementation of legal aid
programmes and lays down policies and principles for making
legal services available under the Act. To familiarize law
students of the country with the problems faced by the masses
ignorant about their rights and remedies under the law, the
Legal Services Clinic in Unlversitv, Law Colleges and other
Institutions scheme was started in 2013. During 2013-14 more
than 22.23 lakh persons have benefited through legal aid
services in the country. Out of them, about 29,000 persons
belong to the scheduled castes, 24,844 to the scheduled tribes,
more than 58,883 are women, and 8,134 are children. During
this period, more than 1,13,838 Lok Adalats have been
organized which settled more than 90.14 lakh cases including
1.17 lakh motor accident claim cases."
5.16. That having regard to the above submission, it is evident that

there
is an impending need expressed by the Central
Government as well to take appropriate measures to globalize

the legal profession and tap into the international market. Such
a move will only build the capacity of the legal practitioners in
India, preparing them for an integrated future.
Further, as
legal services and economic development go hand in hand, it is

submitted that with India's marches towards becoming a global
economy, a necessary corollary would be to globalize the legal
profession so as to give Indian lawyers the best available
opportunities in the legal profession in their own motherland.
5.17. Further, the High Court in its impugned judgment has held that
"practice of the profession of law" under Sections 29 and 30 of
the Advocates Act includes litigious, i.e. appearances and filing
documents before the Courts as well as non-litigious, i.e.
advisory practice in India. The basis of the judgment for
disallowing a foreign law firm from practicing is based on the
erroneous premise that a foreign law firm is not registered
under the Advocates Act. The Petitioner respectfully submits
that such reasoning is based on the incorrect premise and on
an incorrect appreciation of what constitutes a law firm,
because it is always only the individual
lawyers who are
regulated by the Advocates Act and the BCI Rules and not law
firm.
5.18. It is respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble Madras High Court,
in the impugned judgment,
has examined the practice of the
profession of law from the perspective of Indian law and foreign

law as being two facets of the profession.
The Hon'ble High
Court has held:
"59. As noticed above, Section 2(a) of the Advocates Act defines

'Advocate' to mean an Advocate entered in any roll under the
provisions of the Act. In terms of Section 17(1) of the Act, every
State Bar Council shall prepare and maintain a roll of Advocates,
in which shall be entered the names and addresses of - (a) all
persons who were entered as an Advocate on the roll of any High
Court under the Indian Bar Council Act, 1926, immediately before
the appointed date, and (b) all other persons admitted to be
Advocates on the roll of the State Bar Council under the Act on or
after the appointed date. In terms of Section 24(1) of the Act,
subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made
Advocate on a state roll if he fulfils the conditions - (a) a citizen of
India, (b) has completed 21 years of age and (c) obtained a
degree in Law. The Proviso to Section 24(1)(a) states that subject
to the other provisions of the Act, a National of any other country
may be admitted as an Advocate on a State roll, if a citizen of
India, duly qualified is permitted to practice law in that other
country. In terms of Section 47(1) of the Act, where any country
specified by the Central Government by Notification prevents
citizens of India practicing the profession of Law or subjects them
to unfair discrimination in that country, no subject of any such
country shall be entitled to practice the profession of Law in India.
In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 47, subject to the provision
of sub-section (1), the Bar Council of India may prescribe
conditions, if any, subject to which foreign qualifications in law
obtained by persons other than citizens of India shall be
recognized for the purpose of admission as an Advocate under the
Act. Thus, Section 47 deals with reciprocity. As per the Statement
of Objects and Reasons of the Advocates Act, it was a law enacted
to provide one class of legal practitioners, specifying the academic
and professional qualifications necessary for enrolling as a
practitioner of Indian Law, 'and only Indian citizens with a Law
Degree from
a recognized
Indian
University
could enroll as
Advocates under the Act. The exceptions are provided under the
Proviso to Section 24(1)(a), Section 24(1)( c)(iv) and Section
47(2). In the light of the Scheme of the Act, if a lawyer from a
Foreign Law Firm visits India to advice his client on matters
relating to the law which is applicable to their country, for which
purpose he 'flies in and flies out' of India, there could not be a bar
for such services rendered by such Foreign Law Firm/Foreign
Lawyer.
60. We are persuaded to observe so, since there may be several

transactions in which an Indian company or a person of Indian
origin may enter into transaction with a foreign company, and the
laws applicable to such transaction are the laws of the said foreign
country. There may be a necessity to seek legal advice on the
manner in which the Foreign Law would be applied to the said
transaction, for which purpose if a lawyer from a Foreign Law Firm
is permitted to fly into India and fly out advising their client on the
Foreign Law, it cannot be stated to be prohibited. The corollary
would be that such Foreign Law Firm shall not be entitled to do
any form of practice of Indian Law either directly or indirectly. The
private Respondents herein, namely the Foreign Law Firms, have
accepted that there is express prohibition for a Foreign Lawyer or
a Foreign Law Firm to practice Indian Law. It is pointed out that if
an interpretation is given to prohibit practice of Foreign Law by a
Foreign Law Firms within India, it would result in a manifestly
absurd situation wherein only Indian citizens with Indian Law
degree who are enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act
could practice Foreign Law, when the fact remains that Foreign
Laws are not taught at graduate level in Indian Law schools,
except Comparative Law Degree Courses at the Master's level."
5.19. The Petitioner respectfully states and submits that it is evident

that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the Hon'ble High
Court of Madras did not go into the question of whether a
foreign law firm could have Indian qualified lawyers join the
firm and practice Indian law, as it was dealing with a question
of whether foreign qualified lawyers practicing foreign law could
practice Indian law.
The Petitioner is thus setting out the
position comprehensively.
5.20.
Because the concerns that foreign lawyers and foreign law

firms, if allowed to set up, would be unregulated, are merely a
red herring.
In this regard, the Petitioner respectfully states
that (1) the Advocates Act is already sufficiently equipped to

regulate foreign lawyers practicing in India even if they are not
qualified in India, and (2) these lawyers are regulated by their
respective
regulations
Bar Associations in their area of practice.

that
govern these lawyers who would
The
practice
foreign law in India, without being qualified as an advocate for

the practice of Indian law, are set out below.
5.21. Because every country has its own independent set of rules to
regulate the practice of the profession of law.
York, and in the
United
Kingdom,
the
In fact, in New
Bar Council Rules
specifically provide that in case the dually qualified lawyer opts

to practice that law in another country, he would be required to
adhere to the local bar council regulations in addition to those
in his home country. For example, an Indian citizen and/or a
person qualified under the Advocates Act who is called to the
Bar in India as well as in the UK, is permitted
practice of U.K. law outside the UK as well.
to carry on
In the United
Kingdom, the General Council of the Bar of England and Wales

(also known as the England and Wales Bar Council), though its
independent
Bar Standards
Board, prescribes the Code of
Conduct to the followed by all members of the England & Wales

Bar. The Code of Conduct as applicable to the England & Wales
Barristers sets out, in rather express terms, the duties of a
barrister, especially when it comes to international work.
The
relevant provision of the Code of Conduct is set out below:
"Part I - Preliminary
General Purpose of the Code
106. Subject to the International Practice Rules (reproduced in
Annex A) this Code applies to International work and whether a
barrister is practising in England and Wales or elsewhere.
Annex A - The International Practicing Rules
1. "International
work" means practice as a barrister:
(a) where the work (i) relates to matters or proceedings

essentially arising taking place or contemplated outside England
and Wales and (ii) is to be substantially
England and Wales; or
performed
outside
(b) where the lay client carries on business or usually resides

outside England and Wales provided that:
(i) the instructions emanate from outside England and Wales; and
(ii) the work does not involve the barrister in providing advocacy
services.
2. In connection with any International
work, a barrister must
comply with any applicable rule of conduct prescribed by

the law or by any national or local Bar of (a) the place
where the work is or is to be performed (b) the place where
any proceedings or matters to which the work relates are taking
place or contemplated, unless such rule is inconsistent with any
requirement of Part III of this Code ("Fundamental Principles").
[emphasis supplied]
4. In relation to International work substantially performed outside

England and Wales:
(e) NotWithstanding paragraph 201, a barrister who is practising

as a foreign lawyer and who does not:
(i)
give advice on English law, or
(ii)
supply legal services in connection with any proceedings or
contemplated proceedings in England and Wales (other than as an
expert witness on foreign law),
shall not be treated as a practising barrister for the purposes of
the Code.
6. A practising barrister who supplies legal services as a barrister

(other than to his employer) outside England and Wales must be
covered (and in the case of an employed barrister his employer
must be covered) by insurance against claims for professional
negligence arising out of the supply of his services in an amount
not less than the minimum level of insurance cover required by
law or by the rules of the Bar in the place where the services are
supplied or, if there is no such minimum, the current minimum
sum insured for barristers practising in England and Wales.
7. A barrister who solicits work in any jurisdiction outside England

and Wales must not do so in a manner which would be prohibited
if the barrister were a member of the local Bar."
5.22. Similarly, an Indian citizen and/or a person qualified under the

Advocates Act who is also qualified to the Bar in New York is
eligible to practice New York law outside New York.
In a case
where assuming an Indian citizen who is a New York qualified

lawyer and chooses to practice New York law in India, he would
be governed by both the New York regulations as well as the
BCI regulations.
Under the New York Rules of Professional
Conduct, it is stated:
"RULE 8.5:
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND CHOICE OF LAW
(a) A lawyer admitted to practice in this state is subject to the

disciplinary authority of this state, regardless of where the
lawyer's conduct occurs. A lawyer may be subject to the

disciplinary authority of both this state and another jurisdiction
where the lawyer is admitted for the same conduct. [emphasis
supplied]
(b) In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of this state,

the rules of professional conduct to be applied shall be as
follows:
(1) For conduct in connection with a proceeding in a court

before which a lawyer has been admitted to practice (either
generally or for purposes of that proceeding), the rules to be
applied shall be the rules of the jurisdiction in which the court
sits, unless the rules of the court provide otherwise; and
(2) For any other conduct:
(i) If the lawyer is licensed to practice only in this state, the

rules to be applied shall be the rules of this state, and
(ii) If the lawyer is licensed to practice in this state and another

jurisdiction,
the rules to be applied shall be the rules of the
admitting jurisdiction in which the lawyer principally practices;

provided, however, that if particular conduct clearly has its
predominant effect in another jurisdiction in which the lawyer
is licensed to practice, the rules of that jurisdiction shall be
applied to that conduct."
5.23. Therefore, an Indian citizen and/or a person qualified under the
Advocates Act who has an additional qualification from a foreign
jurisdiction,
for example the United Kingdom or New York,
ought to be allowed to practice not just Indian law while in

India but also English law/New York law (as the case may be)
in accordance with the English and/or New York Rules. In such
cases, the lawyer would be regulated by both BCI rules as well
as the regulations applicable to registered lawyers in the foreign
jurisdiction.
5.24. It is also respectfully
submitted
that all these jurisdictions
across the world have adequate provisions similar to the ones

under the Advocates Act to regulate the conduct of legal
professionals, and the procedure for any disciplinary actions to
be initiated in case of any complaints against the lawyer.
As
such, to suggest that these lawyers would not be regulated is

incorrect.
5.25. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that most of the major

jurisdictions across the world already require their lawyers to be
bound by the code of conduct of the foreign jurisdiction if they
are working out of that country. Therefore, if an England and
Wales Barrister or a New York lawyer were to provide legal
services in India, even if it pertained to English law and New
York law respectively, there is still an obligation upon them
emanating from their Bar Councils to adhere to the code of
conduct prescribed for lawyers in India. Therefore, it is wrong
to say that these foreign lawyers will act without being
regulated.
5.26. The Petitioner, in the interest of brevity, further craves leave to

bring forth the regulations in other major countries at the time
of the hearing.
5.27. Because the impugned judgment is once again premises on a
wholly misconceived footing that nationality is a primary
criterion for practice of law in India. Contrary to said notion, it
is submitted that the Advocates Act does not restrict foreign
nationals duly qualified, from practicing Indian law but also
prescribes certain prerequisites for permitting such persons to
be called to the Bar in India.
5.28. In this regard, three provisions of the Advocates Act, when read
together provide the basis for permitting foreign nationals to
practice Indian law in India.
These are Section 24(1)(a),
Section 24(1)(c)(iv) and Section 47, all of which are reproduced

below:
"24. Personswho may be admitted as advocates on a State roll.(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, and the rules made
advocate on a State roll, if he fulfills the following conditions,
namely:-
60
(a) he is a citizen of India:
Provided that subject to the other provisions contained in this Act,
a national of any other country may be admitted as an advocate
on a State roll, if citizens of India, duly qualified, are permitted to
practise law in that other country;
(c) he has obtained a degree in law-
(iv) in any other case, from any University outside the territory of
India, if the degree is recognized for the purposes of this Act by
the Bar Council of India
47. Reciprocity - (1) Where any country, specified by the Central

Government in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette,
prevents citizens of India from practising the profession of law or
subjects them to unfair discrimination in that country, no subject
of any such country shall be entitled to practise the profession of
law in India.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Bar Council of

India may prescribed the conditions, if any, subject to which
foreign qualifications in law obtained by persons other than
citizens of India shall be recognised for the purpose of admission
as an advocate under this Act."
5.29. From a bare perusal of the Advocates Act, it is evident that the
Advocates Act does not proscribe foreign citizenship as a bar on
enrolling as an advocate. In fact the Advocates Act expressly
permits foreign nationals who have obtained degrees outside
India to be enrolled with the SBCs, subject to conditions laid
down by the BCI. The BCI Rules as they stand, have not
imposed any restriction on such enrollment.
61
5.30. The Petitioner further states and submits that the provisions of
the Advocates Act are in fact aligned with the international
standards on the same subject.
Typically, citizenship of a
person is not a factor that determines whether a person may be

enrolled as an advocate or not. The Petitioner submits that the
determining factor is the qualification necessaryfor the practice
of law, which is prescribed by the domestic legislations in each
country. This is why many Indian citizens are being called to
the Bar in various jurisdictions across the world after obtaining
the necessaryqualifications prescribed therein.
5.31. Because the impugned order is anti-thesis to the concept of
reciprocity contained under the provisions of Section 47 of the
Advocates Act, 1961 and hence against the public policy of
India. For that since a number of foreign countries permit a
person qualified under the Advocates Act to practice Indian law
outside of India, there has been a brain drain of Indian citizens,
many of whom have chosen to practice outside India. Indeed,
the Petitioner states that there are a number of Indian citizens
who, either on the basis of their graduation degree obtained in
India, or on the basis of them being called to the Indian Bar,
currently hold dual qualifications most notably in countries such
as United States as well as the United Kingdom. However, if
foreign law firms could establish their offices in India, such
Indian citizens would have the option of returning back and
would be able to provide the same services which they provide
outside India.
5.32. That in a number of countries, foreign law firms i.e. firms

practicing the law other than the law of the home state are
allowed to practice. This includes law firms who practice Indian
law, English law, laws of the United States of America etc.
outside their own home jurisdiction. Countries such as the
United Kingdom, the United Stales of America, Australia,
Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. to name a few, permit
Indian
qualified
lawyers
to
establish
a practice
in those
countries which enables them to practice Indian law.
It is
respectfully submitted that many such Indian lawyers and law

firms have done exactly that.
No
Icountry
.
1.
r
Australia
Legal services allowed to

be practiced
Restrictions on practice
Indian law and International
N/A
-r~~----+-La-w------------------+_---------------2. Canada
Advisory serviceson Indian
law and third country law
(except Canadian law) and
International Law
No restrictions on
independent practice.
-I
i
If practice through the

establishment of a firm,
then the fi rm has to be
constituted as a partnership.
China
3.
All legal services, except

Chinese law
Commercial presence
restricted to representative I
office only
I
II---~
I
European
Community
Indian Law and Public

International Law
N/A
----~
f------+------+--------------t-----------------__j
5.
Japan
All legal services, including

Japaneselaw.
Mandatory to establish a full

time presencefor the
practice of law.
I
I
I
i
6.
L__-'I
Advisory serviceson Indian ---1'-c-o-m-m--e-rc-ia-l-p-re-s--e-n-ce--~---1
Malaysia
I
laws, International law and

offshore corporation laws of
lMa,aY:~
through a corporation
incorporated in the Federal
J_T_e_rn~~_of_La~ba~n.
_______
i
I
I
J
7.
Nepal
Indian law, International law

and Third Country law (except
NepaleseLaw)
Bar membership is required

for appearance before
Courts
8.
New
Zealand
All laws (including New

Zealand law)
N/A
9.
Singapore
All laws (including Singapore

law)
Subject to obtaining
necessary licensethat will
be reviewed on a case to
case basis.
I
10. South Africa All laws (including South
African law)
No restrictions on the
practice of foreign law.
South African law can be

practiced only by way of a
sole proprietorship.
11. Switzerland
Indian Law, International Law N/A

and Third Country Law (except
Swiss law)
12. Thailand
All laws (including Thai laws)
13. Turkey
Indian law, International Law Only Turkish nationals may

and Third Country Law (except appear before Courts, even
Turkish law)
if employed by a foreign law
firm.
If practice of law is through I

a company, then equity
I
participation can be up to
I
49% only.
All laws (including laws of
14. United
Kingdom
England & Wales)
Subject to obtaining the

necessary qualification and
license.
15. United
1
All laws (including United

States law)
Subject to the domestic

regulations of various states
5.33. In this regard, the Petitioner also states that India as a country
loses out on economic benefit by not allowing such lawyers to
practice from India, as well as not allowing foreign lawyers to
practice their foreign laws in India for the purposes of servicing
the international requirements of Indian clients. Furthermore, it
is respectfully submitted that under the Advocates Act and the
BCI Rules, which regulate the practice of Indian law by
advocates enrolled across the various states in the country,
allows a person who has obtained his legal education from a
University outside of India, to also qualify as an advocate under
the Advocates Act.
5.34. Under Section 24(1)(c)(iv) of the Advocates Act, Indian

nationals, who have obtained a degree from Universities outside
India, may still be enrolled as an advocate in India to practice
Indian law, if the BCI recognizes the University where the law
graduate obtained his degree from.
5.35. Rule 37 of Part IV of the BCI Rules, titled Rules on Legal

Education recognizes the degree of a Foreign University
obtained by an Indian national.
"CHAPTERV - Recognition of Degree in law of a Foreign University
37. Degree of a Foreign University obtained by an Indian citizen
If an Indian national having attained the age of 21 years and

obtains a degree in law from a Foreign University such a degree in
law can be recognized for the purpose of enrolment on fulfillment
of following conditions:
(i)
completed and obtained the degree in law after regularly
pursuing the course for a period not less than three years in case
the degree in law is obtained Bar Council of India after graduation
in any branch of knowledge or for a period of not less than five
years if admitted into the integrated course after passing +2 stage
in the higher secondary examination or its equivalent; and
(ii)
the University is recognized by the Bar Council of India and
candidate concerned passes the examination
conducted by the
Bar Council of India in substantive and procedural law subjects,

which
are specifically
needed to
practice
law in India
and
prescribed by the Bar Council of India from time to time as given

in the schedule XIV. Provided that those who joined LL.B. course
in a recognized Foreign University prior to 21st February, 2005 the
date of notification in this regard by the Bar Council of India need
not seek for such examination, other aforesaid condition remain
same.
Provided the same privilege shall be also extended to Persons of

Indian Origin having double citizenship in India."
5.36. As on date, 90 Universities from 13 different
countries have
been granted recognition by the BCI under Rule 39 of the Legal

Education Rules, 2008.
5.37. Therefore, a person may be an advocate under the Advocates

Act even if he has obtained his degree from outside India on
the
basis of the
BCI recognition
to the
University.
The
Petitioner states that a degree obtained in a foreign university
(,b
may also entitle that person to qualify as a lawyer in that
jurisdiction, which would facilitate that person to possess dual
qualification, one in India and one in the foreign jurisdiction. In
fact it is evident that it would be unconstitutional to suggest
that an Indian citizen who has duly obtained a law degree from
a foreign University and is thus duly qualified to practice Indian
law and the law of the foreign state, would be disallowed from
doing such a practice from India.
5.38. The Petitioner also respectfully submits that the Advocates Act
does not create a bar on Indian law firms from setting up
offices in a foreign jurisdiction.
Notably, a number of Indian
law firms with Indian qualified lawyers, have today opened

offices in London, New York, Singapore, Paris, Munich, Brussels,
etc.
5.39. In light of the above, the Petitioner therefore respectfully
submits:
a) There is no restriction under the Advocates Act or under the

BCI Rules to prohibit a foreign law firm from establishing an
office in India;
b) The practice of Indian law by the foreign law firm will have
to be undertaken by an "advocate" duly qualified under the
Advocates Act and the BCI Rules;
c) The foreign law firm may also practice the profession of
foreign law through its foreign qualified lawyers from the
offices in India;
d) Indian citizens, with dual qualification under the Advocates
Act as well as from a foreign jurisdiction, are entitled under
the Advocates Act to practice not just Indian law but also
foreign law for which they are dually qualified (subject to the
rules governing their conduct under foreign law) from India;
and
e) Qualification as an advocate under the Advocates Act is not
limited to citizens of India: A non-citizen from another
country which allows Indian citizens to be called to their Bar

can be eligible to be qualified as an advocate in India so
long as that person meets the qualification criteria set out
under the Advocates Act and the BCI Rules.
5.40. The Petitioner's objectives since its inception has been to

promote, foster and develop international law in India.
The
Petitioner is of the view that the stand of the BCI towards dual
qualified lawyers as well as only foreign qualified lawyers
(Indians or non-Indians) is limiting the exposure to international
law to the young lawyers of today in India. The Petition states
the deprivation of exposure to the young lawyers of today may
in fact leave the legal profession in India stagnant, and the
Indian lawyers may not be able to compete with their
international counter parts in the years to come.
6. GROUNDS
FOR INTERIM
RELIEF:
No interim relief is sought for at this stage.
7. MAIN PRAYER:
The Petitioner, therefore, prays that:

(A)
Grant Special Leave to Appeal under Article
136 of the
Constitution of India against impugned Judgment and final order

dated 16 December 2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (C) No. 1526 of 1995;
(B) Pass any other order and/or directions as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper.
8.INTERIM
RELIEF:
No interim relief is sought for at this stage.
AND FOR THIS ACf OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN

DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.
DRAWN BY:
FILED BY:
Nakul Dewan,
Jaikriti Jadeja,
Azal Khan
Advocates
(Vikash Singh)
Advocate for the Petitioner
SETTLED BY
Mr. Harish N. Salve
Senior Advocate
New Delhi

CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF:

... PETITIONER

VERSUS
... RESPONDENTS
Bar Council of India & Ors
CERTIFICATE
Certified
that
the
Special
Leave
Petition
IS
confined only to the
pleadings before the Court whose order is challenged and the other
documents relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts,
documents or grounds have been taken therein or relied upon in the
Special Leave Petition.
documents/Annexures
It is further certified that the copies of the

attached to the Special Leave Petition are
necessary to answer the questions of law raised in the Petition. This

certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given by the
Petitioner/ person authorized by the Petitioners whose affidavit is filed in
support of the Special Leave Petition.
MR. VIKASH SINGH

Advocate for the Petitioner
New Delhi
Dated: j6 -O~
-'-o1,r

OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF:

..... Petitioner
Versus
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & Ors
..... Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Jaikriti Sinh Jadeja, 0/0 Shri Devendra Sinh Jadeja, Aged 28 years, working
at B-5/204, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029, do hereby solemnly affirm
and state as under:
1. That I am the Secretary of the Petitioner in the above mentioned
Special Leave Petition and as such I am weJI conversant with the facts
and circumstances of the case and competent to swear the present
affidavit.
2
That I have gone through a copy of the List of Dates from running
pages B to
_p_
and a copy of the Special Leave Petition from
paragraphs 1 to ~ from running pages
yo
to
3J._Q_
and I state that
the contents thereof are true and correct to my knowledge.
3.
That I have gone through copies of the interlocutory applications and

state that the contents thereof are true and correct to my knowledge.
4.
That the annexures attached to the present Special Leave Petition are
true and correct copies of their respective originals.
VERIFICATION
Verified at
N.'ZW .. ~~.
on this .J.r..t~
day of March, 2015 that the contents of
the above affidavit are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Global Indian Lawyers V Bar Council of India

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Global Indian Lawyers V Bar Council of India

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[SCR, Order XXI Rule 3(1) (a)]

SPEC!. '_ LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.

Bar Council of India & Ors

(PLEASE SEE INDEX INSIDE)

ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD FOR THE PETITIONER: - VIKASH SINGH

s8u~paa:>oJd JO pJo:>aJ JO a~ea

Office Report on Limitation

Synopsis and List of dates

Copy of the impugned judgment

Special Leave Petition with Affidavit

Application for Permission to file

Application for exemption from filing

Application for condonation of delay in

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

The petition is/are within time.

The petition is barred by time and there is a delay of

16-/:{- '],oJ'! and

petition for condonation of lEU. days has been filed.

days in refilling the petition and

Tile case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):

Central Act: (Title)

Central Rule: (Title)

o State Act : (Title)

Impugned Interim Order: (Date) __

Names 0tJ udges: .ila.,J'LAo t>:I)::. .!tli'(t. ~~.

High Court: (Name)

'(b) e-mail 10:

N~_ft_.. __.. ._._..__.

(b) e-mail ID:

(c) Mobile phone number: -_._d_

4. (a) Main ~ategory cl~ssification: _~_'CU_f'I.::a

,SLp e.G) ~ t lS'~:11S-~

5:. Not to be listed before:

(h) FIR No. _,~--'

, . '(c) Police Station:

.__ ,_f\!__;__- .!..-A...L..-

(e) Sentence Undergone:

8: Land Acquisition Matters:

(~) Date.ofSection 6 notification:

(c) Date'of Section 17 notiflcation:

9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect:

10. Special Category (first petitioner/appellant only):

11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters):

--- .. ----tJ_-~A- ..------------."-.--

Registration No. ", __

61 ~;;r':\ \ ' ' 'It "".\"" -.

iA.; d\tl~}-' ~;';';;-'(~A\

","t, ') ").

The aim and objects for

Hence, the necessary corollary to this

requirement would entail that even in respect of a foreign law firm, it is

The Courts have not considered the question that an Indian

Though the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has in principle upheld

"fly in fly out basis", it is submitted that there is no restriction in

Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has erred in assuming

lawyers practicing foreign law would be

professionals to have a global outlook and

students and Indian legal professionals to

degree and courses, to

lawyers, also being qualified in a foreign

.__ ,_f\!;- .!..-A...L..-