By Binny Yadav
The legal fraternity across India is up in arms against the proposed amendments to the Advocates Act, 1961, particularly a provision that classifies strikes and abstention from work as “professional misconduct”. If enforced, the changes would subject lawyers to penalties for such actions—a move deemed “unjust, arbitrary, and oppressive” by legal professionals.
In protest, advocates across the country abstained from work following the announcement of the Advocates Act Amendment 2025 in mid-February. The central government, through the Ministry of Law and Justice, claims the amendments aim to make the legal profession more “fair, transparent, and accessible to all”. However, lawyers argue that the proposed changes threaten judicial independence, professional autonomy, and could even increase government interference.
The government has invited objections and suggestions from lawyers and Bar Associations, with a deadline set for February 28.
Lawyers’ Concerns Over The Amendments
- A threat to professional autonomy
Jagdeep Vats, Chairman of the Coordination Committee of all Delhi Bar Associations, warns that these amendments strike at the heart of legal independence. “Lawyers are officers of the court. If their voices are suppressed, the rights of the people will suffer,” he argues.
Addressing the classification of abstention from work as misconduct, Vats clarifies that lawyers do not resort to strikes frivolously. “Unlike salaried employees, we rely solely on client fees. Banning strikes is arbitrary and undermines people’s access to justice,” he says.
Senior Advocate Sacchin Puri also criticizes Section 35A, which prohibits strikes, stating that it opens the door for litigants to sue lawyers over adverse judgments. “If the right to protest is taken away, how will lawyers raise concerns? The government and Bar Associations must collaborate before imposing such drastic changes,” he asserts.
- Fear of penalization and false complaints
A major worry among advocates is the provision penalizing lawyers based on client dissatisfaction. Vats warns that this could be misused by disgruntled litigants, leading to false complaints and severe consequences. “An advocate could face a one-year prison term and penalties if a client alleges ‘deliberate professional misconduct.’ This will create fear and disrupt the legal profession,” he explains.
- Government interference in Bar Council operations
Another contentious proposal is the inclusion of three government-nominated representatives in the Bar Council of India (BCI). Lawyers see this as an attempt to dilute the independence of the Bar.
Senior Advocate and ex-officio member of the Delhi High Court Bar Association, Kirti Uppal, strongly opposes this move. “The government did not consult lawyers before proposing these amendments, even though they directly impact the profession. If these changes are imposed, lawyers will resist,” he warns.
Echoing similar concerns, Puri urges the government to engage in dialogue with legal bodies. “Reforms should be fair and balanced. The government must work with Bar Associations before finalizing these amendments,” he states.
Key Highlights Of The Proposed Amendments
1. Expansion of legal practitioner definition
- Section 2 expands the term “legal practitioner” to include corporate lawyers,in-house counsels, and foreign law firms practicing in India.
2. Mandatory Bar Association registration
- Section 33A requires all advocates to register with a Bar Association where they primarily practice.
- Advocates must notify authorities within 30 days of any change in location or legal field.
3. Ban on strikes and boycotts
- Section 35A prohibits advocates and Bar Associations from calling for strikes.
- Violations will be treated as professional misconduct, attracting disciplinary action.
- Symbolic protests are allowed only if they do not disrupt court proceedings.
4. Increased government oversight in the BCI
- Section 4 introduces three government-nominated members in the BCI.
- Section 49B grants the central government the power to issue directives to the BCI.
5. Stricter disciplinary measures and penalties
- Unauthorized practice (Section 45): Imprisonment increased to one year (previously six months), fine raised to Rs two lakh.
- Advocate misconduct (Section 45B): Clients can file complaints leading to penalties.
- Removal from the State Bar Council (Section 24B): Advocates convicted of offenses with three or more years of imprisonment will be removed. Re-enrollment possible two years after release, subject to BCI approval.
6. Mandatory verification of advocate credentials
- Sections 19A & 7(DA) introduce periodic five-year verification of law degrees, work addresses, place of practice. Fake or forged degrees will lead to disqualification.
7. Entry of foreign law firms
- Foreign law firms and practitioners will be allowed in India under central government-regulated rules.
8. Legal education and professional training
- The BCI will oversee legal education reforms, including: pre- and post-enrollment training. Mandatory All-India Bar Examination before full practice rights.
9. Increased women representation in the BCI
- The bill mandates at least two women members in the BCI, promoting gender diversity.
A Call For Balanced Reforms
While certain provisions—such as mandatory training, credential verification, and gender diversity—are welcomed by sections of the legal community, others require serious reconsideration. Lawyers are calling for a balanced approach that safeguards both their rights and judicial efficiency.
As the February 28 deadline for objections approaches, the legal fraternity urges the government to engage in meaningful discussions with Bar Associations, senior advocates and legal experts before enacting reforms that could reshape India’s legal landscape.
—The writer is a New Delhi-based journalist, lawyer and trained mediator