Key Points

In a strongly worded statement, the BCI stated that SILF represents less than 2% of the country's 15,000+ law firms and functions as a private, self-appointed body with no statutory or democratic authority. Describing SILF as an elite group shielding narrow commercial interests, the BCI stated it does not speak for the broader legal community.

Reinforcing its mandate under the Advocates Act, 1961, the BCI clarified that it is the sole statutory authority responsible for regulating legal education and practice in India. It emphasised that the 2025 Amended Rules, which permit foreign law firms to advise on foreign and international law (but prohibit them from practising Indian law or appearing in courts), were crafted in compliance with Supreme Court rulings and international standards.

The BCI 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. It called SILF's continued resistance a protectionist stance, aimed at preserving existing advantages while excluding young and emerging firms from global opportunities.

Criticising SILF's recent public statements, the BCI warned that some language used amounts to professional misconduct under the Bar Council Rules, especially provisions prohibiting misleading publicity and improper conduct by advocates. It announced that disciplinary action may be initiated against individuals responsible for such misrepresentations.

The BCI reaffirmed its commitment to inclusive reforms, aimed at unifying law firms under a new democratic and representative platform. It welcomed feedback from law firms nationwide, extended its public consultation deadline, and announced plans to convene a large-scale meeting in Mumbai to finalise its policy decisions with inputs from all stakeholders.

Rejecting SILF's claims that foreign entry would harm Indian legal interests, the BCI noted that many countries--including the UK and Singapore--allow foreign lawyers to offer advisory services without impacting domestic legal sovereignty. The BCI's model follows this globally accepted approach.

In response, SILF President Lalit Bhasin recently claimed that BCI's allegations were unfounded and questioned whether the move would harm Indian law firms.

While reiterating its support for the phased entry of foreign firms, SILF expressed concern over the implementation and alleged that Indian law firms--especially younger ones--are already thriving due to economic growth and digital advancement.

The BCI maintained that its reforms are intended to level the playing field, modernise the legal profession, and position India as a global arbitration and legal hub. It emphasised that public sentiment and media support overwhelmingly favour the move and that obstructionist rhetoric from narrow interest groups will not derail progress.

- ANI