The Bar Council of India (BCI) has issued a strong rebuke to the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) over its opposition to the BCI's recent decision to allow foreign lawyers and law firms to operate in India under certain restrictions. The BCI has accused SILF of misrepresenting the interests of the broader Indian legal community and protecting the narrow commercial interests of a few large, well-established firms.

In a statement released on June 18, 2025, the BCI asserted that SILF represents less than 2% of the country's 15,000+ law firms and operates as a private, self-appointed body without any statutory or democratic authority. The BCI further described SILF as an elite group shielding narrow commercial interests, stating that it does not speak for the broader legal community.

The BCI has emphasized that it is the sole statutory authority responsible for regulating legal education and practice in India, as mandated by the Advocates Act, 1961. The council clarified that the 2025 Amended Rules, which permit foreign law firms to advise on foreign and international law (but prohibit them from practicing Indian law or appearing in courts), were crafted in compliance with Supreme Court rulings and international standards.

The BCI has dismissed SILF's claims that there are no monopolies in the Indian legal sector, pointing instead to how a few large firms have cornered corporate and arbitration work through exclusive networks. The BCI views SILF's continued resistance as a protectionist stance, aimed at preserving existing advantages while excluding young and emerging firms from global opportunities.

The BCI's move to allow foreign law firms to operate in India in a limited capacity is aimed at leveling the playing field, modernizing the legal profession, and positioning India as a global arbitration and legal hub. The amended rules restrict foreign law firms and lawyers strictly to advisory roles in non-litigious matters involving foreign law, international law, or international commercial arbitration, all subject to regulatory oversight and a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Government of India. The regulations explicitly protect Indian legal sovereignty, with no foreign lawyer or firm allowed to interpret, argue, or practice Indian law. Any attempt to circumvent these provisions will attract regulatory action.

The BCI has also refuted claims that the entry of foreign law firms would harm Indian legal interests, noting that many countries, including the UK and Singapore, allow foreign lawyers to offer advisory services without impacting domestic legal sovereignty. The council believes that the core issue behind SILF's opposition is the fear that foreign law firms may choose to work directly with smaller and medium Indian law firms or talented young lawyers instead of them.

SILF, however, has maintained that it is not against the entry of foreign law firms, but that the changes should happen slowly and in a well-planned manner. Lalit Bhasin, the president of SILF, stated that he supports the process, but it must be conducted properly, with opportunities given to have domestic reforms as well. Bhasin also raised concerns that the BCI's move might go against a 2018 Supreme Court ruling and suggested that Parliament should step in and amend the law to avoid confusion.

The BCI has already constituted a high-level committee, chaired by Cyril Shroff and comprising senior partners from leading law firms, to review the rules and incorporate feedback from stakeholders, including SILF. The council has also resolved to individually engage with law firms nationwide and is working to convene a national-level conference of Indian law firms in Mumbai this September. The BCI is also preparing a centralized registry of all law firms to establish a democratically elected pan-India organization for them, which will ensure regional representation in policy dialogues.

The BCI has warned that some of SILF's recent public statements amount to professional misconduct under the Bar Council Rules, especially provisions prohibiting misleading publicity and improper conduct by advocates. The council has stated that disciplinary action may be initiated against individuals responsible for such misrepresentations. The BCI has reiterated its commitment to inclusive reforms, aimed at unifying law firms under a new, democratic platform.