The Modi government has sprung a dangerous surprise on the legal fraternity by the sudden announcement of the proposed Advocates (Amendment Bill) 2025. The lengthy Bill, in the guise of amendments, proposes a veritable overhaul of the existing law regulating the legal practice, the Advocates Act, 1961. While the Bill cites lofty objectives including making the legal profession fair, transparent and accessible to all, a careful reading of the Bill reveals that its substantive provisions and policy prescriptions seek to obliterate the governing principles and values of the legal profession. Firstly, the Modi government contemplates changes that will facilitate the domination of the Union government in the regulation and functioning of the legal profession. Secondly, the Bar Council of India (BCI), which, over the past decades has capitulated to the machinations of the Sangh Parivar, is sought to be empowered at the cost of the independence and autonomy of the State Bar Councils. Thirdly, an all-out assault is unleashed on Advocates by infringing on their fundamental freedoms and rights.

Before getting into the details of the Advocates (Amendment Bill) 2025, a basic recapture of the fundamentals values and principles underlying the legal profession is essential.

The legal profession, notwithstanding the lawyer’s foilles and weaknesses, enjoys a privilege of position in society, owing to its legacy of speaking out against injustice. The Freedom Struggle for instance had a galaxy of political leaders from the legal fraternity, be it Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, M. Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru or Singaravelar. Beyond India’s borders there is Fidel Castro and Nelson Mandela just to name a couple. After Independence, we have witnessed the crucial role that advocates can play in the lives of Nagabhusan Patnaik, Kannabiran and K Balagopal or even Krishna Iyer. The legal fraternity also enjoys a sepcial status due  to the inherent independence associated with the profession, in particular independence from the state and state regulation, as compared to other professions, which enables  them to fearlessly oppose the actions and policies of the Government in defence of not just their clients, but of the constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms. Fali Nariman sums this up rather neatly in his autobiography “Before Memory Fades…”, in these words: "The truth is that people – ordinary people (though not those working for governments) – regard lawyers as more equal than themselves. They look upon lawyers as trained to use the freedom granted by the county's constitution, as persons who know better than ordinary people how to use this freedom. In times of grave crisis – constitutional or national – they look at lawyers (and associations of lawyers) to see how they react. They have done so in the past – and will continue to do so in the future."

There are certain non-negotiable principles in the role of the lawyers and the status of the legal profession that have a direct nexus with the independence of the legal profession and the justice delivery system, in particular that lawyers shall at all times be protected from any interference in the pursuit of justice. Governments are meant to ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference without any fear of persecution for any action taken in accordance with recognised professional duties, standards and ethics. To this end, it is envisaged that the bar associations of lawyers shall be independent and self-governing bodies regulating the profession itself. It is in this sense that the legal profession stands apart from other professions.

These principles are encoded into the Advocates Act. 1961 which ensures the independence of advocates, and the autonomy of the Bar Associations and Bar Councils. It is these very principles that the Modi government now seeks to undermine through the proposed amendments.

Paving the way for takeover of the legal profession by the Union Government

One fundamental shift conceptualised through the amendments is the decimation of the independence of the legal profession. The hitherto limited role of the Union Government is sought to be enhanced in a manner sufficient for it to control the legal profession in its entirety. Firstly, it is proposed that the Union government will arrogate to itself the right to nominate three members to the BCI. Secondly, an amendment is sought to be introduced giving the Union government the right to issue directions to the BCI. Both these proposed amendments severely compromise the independence of the legal profession. Professional self-regulation is fundamental to preserving judicial autonomy, as permitting such executive interference in the legal regulatory bodies will severely undermine institutional integrity. These politically motivated amendments are aimed at securing total control over the BCI, and by inference, facilitating the veritable capture of the legal profession.

This becomes apparent from another amendment sought to be introduced, in regard to the entry of persons into the legal profession. As things stand today, the Advocates Act, 1961 grants the right to practice to every person who has completed their legal education and has enrolled at the Bar Council. In a complete departure from this existing law, the Union government proposes to make this right subject to rules framed by the Union Government or Regulations framed by the BCI, thus empowering the Modi government to now decide who can even enter the legal profession.

Disproportionately centralizing power in the BCI at the risk of making State Bar Councils redundant:

The second set of changes that the amendments seek to introduce is the disproportionate increase in the role, powers and control of the BCI, while simultaneously compromising its independence. In conjunction with the proposed powers of the Union Government, it is apparent that the Bar Councils will end up as puppets in the hands of the Union Government due to the amendments.

Hitherto, any complaint of misconduct against an Advocate is entertained and taken before the Disciplinary Committees of the State Bar Councils. The Modi government now proposes that the BCI entertain complaints against ANY advocate across the country, and gives the BCI discretion to immediately put such Advocate under suspension if it deems fit. Another amendment proposes that the BCI can initiate disciplinary action for misconduct against the General Council of the State Bar Council or its Disciplinary Committee if it is of the opinion that they have failed to prosecute disciplinary proceedings effectively! Yet another amendment empowers the BCI to replace a Bar Council with a Committee of its choice, if it is of the opinion that the said State Bar Council is unable to perform its functions for any reason whatsoever. While empowering the BCI to such an extent that the State Bar Councils are rendered ineffectual and subservient, another amendment proposes special protection to members of the BCI against whom allegations of corruption and misconduct by mandating that such allegations would first be whetted by a Special Public Grievance Redressal Committee of Bar Council of India headed by former judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of the High Court. There is no rationale for why BCI members have such high protection, except insulate them from action as members of a severely compromised and Union Government-run BCI.

These proposed amendments not only facilitates centralization of powers with the BCI but also empower it with arbitrary and discretionary powers to take action against State Bar Councils and Advocates. Clearly these are intended to target those advocates and State Bar Councils that it, or the executive, find inconvenient.

Shackling lawyers and their Associations

Advocates are the officers of the Court, and Bar Associations as their collective voice are integral to the administration of justice. Bar Associations, where well-organised and principled, stand as the genuine voice of the legal fraternity. Though Bar Associations have at times breached their mandate, for instance passing unconstitutional resolutions demanding lawyers not represent certain accused, these are issues that can be overcome by members of the bar, it does not need the intervention of the Bar Councils.

Genuine independence is a must for bar associations. The existing law contemplates these to be self-regulating and autonomous. Similarly, advocates are contemplated to be allowed to perform their roles in the pursuit of justice without interference. One proposed amendment expands the role of the State Bar Councils to “ensure effective and transparent functioning of the Bar Associations under its jurisdiction” in contrast to its more restricted present mandate of assisting with effective implementation of welfare schemes under the current Act. This completely undermines the latter’s independence and goes against the basic governing principle that the self-regulation of the legal profession enables professional bodies or associations to govern their members in a manner that ensures that they are not subject to undue influence from the State or other external pressures.

Self-regulation protects lawyers from external influences that could compromise their integrity and independence, which are essential for a functioning democracy. In many parts of the world, lawyers face pressure from governments or other entities that seek to control or influence their work. Self-regulation acts as a buffer against such pressures, enabling lawyers to act in the best interests of their clients and the justice system. Sacrificing this independence of the Bar is detrimental to democracy and administration of justice.

Advocates too face a frontal attack under the proposed amendments. It is now proposed that advocates should be ready to undertake exams at any time during the course of their practice. Reading these provisions conjunctively it is apparent that the Union Government contemplates for the BCI to conduct exams even to permit Advocates to continue in the profession. Not a single profession contemplates such.

In a bid to silence advocates, a statutory prohibition on boycotts or abstention from courts’ work is proposed. Any individual lawyer or organization in violation is liable for misconduct. Strikes are only permitted under the Bill when it impedes the administration of justice. These provisions are condemnable not least because they have been brought in to control and bar and divest them of their fundamental right to protest. This is only the latest in a larger series of interventions by the judiciary in a bid to stymie fearless voices against corruption, favouritism, and nepotism in the judicial system. Members of the Bar have time and again decried the lack of mechanisms to combat judicial corruption which is compounded by the lack of an impartial procedure for the selection of judges. Any boycotts or protests by Advocates ought to be seen in this context. These are mostly called in response to extreme exigencies like police misconduct, and the safety concerns of the legal fraternity.

There are numerous other amendments proposed that infringe on the basic rights of advocates. Membership to the bar associations, hitherto voluntary, is made compulsory. Several other provisions also have the impact of removing advocates from practice altogether. The amendments allow for advocate names to be removed from the Rolls if found guilty of serious misconduct or for obstructing court's functioning. Punishments are massively expanded including imposition of fines upto Rs. 3 lakhs.

The Draft Bill also permits the entry of foreign law firms or foreign lawyers in India. The motivation for this lies in the negotiations around the India-United Kingdom free trade agreement (FTA), at the centre of which are trade in “services” in regard to which there is immense pressure from the UK for the opening up of the Indian legal service sector and the removal of restrictions for foreign lawyers to practice in India. Clearly the Union Government does not mind sacrificing the interests of the Indian legal fraternity for the sake of its free trade agreement with the UK.

Conclusion

For the past sixty years and more, the Advocates Act of 1961 has regulated India's legal profession, establishing standards for lawyers, legal education, and professional conduct. The proposed amendments vide Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025 has the effect of dismantling the entire edifice of the legal profession as we know it. Even the few positive measures including co-opting women lawyers in the BCI and providing legal aid are grossly inadequate. For instance, why do the amendments only allow for co-option of women advocates to the BCI and not State Bar Councils? And why is it through co-option, and not reservation? Moreover, these are measures that the Union Government should have anyway actualized given the Supreme Court’s slew of orders on reserving seats for women in Bar Council elections. Notably, there is still neither any mention of reservations for SC, ST, OBCs, transgender persons, sexuality minorities, in the Bar Councils, nor any statutory mandates for ensuring social and economic justice within the legal fraternity. Tackling corruption in the Courts, lack of infrastructure and making meaningful access to justice remain unaddressed.

It is clear that the mainstay of the amendments is nothing less than a wholesale takeover by the Union Government at the cost of the independence of autonomous legal bodies. The legal fraternity is reduced to a pliant legal workforce with limited or no social role. Social justice may be the signature tune of the Constitution, yet it is glaringly absent in the Draft Bill. Nothing more could be more of a betrayal to the legacy of the galaxy of lawyers who won us freedom from the colonial powers and stood in defence of these institutions over the past 75 years.

Advocates across the country are up in arms against these proposed amendments. Looking at the dubious responses of some bar councils and bar associations, it is apparent that most of their leadership are committed to the Sangh Parivar and its ideology and have no concern about the legal fraternity or the independence of the profession. The legal fraternity cannot rely solely on the BCI, State Bar Councils or the Bar Associations. The legal fraternity has to unite and fight, not just against the Advocates Amendment Bill. 2025, but the intentions of the Modi government to decimate the legal profession. The Modi government, faced with widespread protests and resistance from the legal community has been forced to withdraw this Bill for now. Their intentions, though, have been made clear and the legal fraternity must be alert to any revived efforts by the Modi government.