By : Anubhi Srivastava

Abstract:  

The Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, poses significant challenges to the autonomy of the legal profession in India by expanding executive control over the Bar Council of India (BCI) and restricting collective action by lawyers. This critique examines the Bill’s potential to centralise power, raises concerns about judicial independence and impact fundamental rights, including the right to dissent. Drawing historical parallels with past instances of governmental overreach, both in India and globally, it highlights the risks posed to the legal profession’s role as a safeguard of democracy. The analysis underscores how the Bill’s provisions could weaken the adversarial justice system and compromise access to legal representation, particularly for marginalised communities. Ultimately, it argues that the Bill threatens not only legal self-regulation but also the foundation of constitutional democracy and the regulation of public policy in India. 

Introduction: 

The Union Ministry of Law and Justice has recently announced that the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which was made available for public consultation on February 13, 2025, will now be revised based on the feedback it has received. The Bill has sparked intense debate across the legal community. While its aim is to standardise legal practice and enhance professional standards, critics argue that it has the potential to undermine the autonomy of the Indian legal profession. 

Key Controversies 

One of the primary concerns regarding the Bill is the expanded role of the central government in the Bar Council of India (BCI). The Bill proposes that the central government may nominate up to three members to the BCI, in addition to existing members such as the Attorney General and Solicitor General. Furthermore, Section 49B grants the central government the authority to issue directives to the BCI for implementing provisions of the Act and its rules. Although the BCI remains responsible for regulating law firms, including those operating across multiple states, the Bill permits the central government to override BCI regulations if they conflict with governmental rules. Such provisions fundamentally alter the power dynamics within the legal profession, raising concerns about self-regulation and the potential violation of Article 50, which mandates the separation of the executive from the judiciary. 

The Bill also introduces Section 35A, which prohibits lawyers from striking or boycotting work if it disrupts court operations. Additionally, Section 24B outlines grounds for removal from the state roll, further strengthening the executive’s control over the legal profession. As highlighted by Bar & Bench, these restrictions not only curtail the right to collective action but also threaten to create an unassertive legal community. India’s Constitution, with its emphasis on fundamental rights, free speech, and the rule of law, has always relied on an independent and fearless legal fraternity to hold those in power accountable. However, the Bill’s provisions could stifle dissent, making it increasingly difficult for advocates to challenge governmental decisions or object to policies that may be detrimental to public interest or constitutional rights. 

Implications 

The independence of the legal profession is intrinsically linked to public morality and the rule of law. Historical precedents in India and globally demonstrate that government encroachment on legal autonomy often compromises these principles. The Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, with its provisions enabling executive control over the BCI and restricting lawyers’ ability to organise protests, mirrors past instances where state interference in legal affairs led to democratic backsliding. This is not merely a structural concern but a fundamental moral dilemma, as lawyers serve as guardians of justice, ethical governance, and public accountability. Their ability to act without fear of reprisal is essential in maintaining the moral fabric of a constitutional democracy. 

A key historical precedent that underscores the dangers of such state intervention is the Emergency of 1975-77 in India, during which fundamental rights were suspended, the judiciary was weakened, and the legal profession faced direct and indirect pressure to align with government policies. Press censorship and mass arrests of dissenters were facilitated by a legal system that, under executive pressure, failed to act as a check on power. Many lawyers and judges who resisted faced consequences, while others complied, leading to a temporary moral and legal breakdown in Indian democracy. The proposed Bill echoes similar concerns, as provisions granting the government increased control over the BCI could discourage legal professionals from taking up cases that challenge state power or protect marginalized communities. 

This moral dilemma goes beyond India’s borders. The Nazi legal system in Germany is an extreme but telling example of how the legal profession, when subjugated by the state, can become a tool for legitimizing injustice. During Hitler’s rule, judges and lawyers were expected to align their interpretations of law with Nazi ideology, stripping the legal system of its moral duty to act as a check on power.  

Similarly, Poland’s judicial reforms in recent years, which increased political control over judicial appointments and legal disciplinary measures. These reforms allowed the executive to control the judiciary, compromising the separation of powers and weakening the rule of law. Polish judges had to face disciplinary threats, with the Bill’s provision allowing government-appointed members to the BCI, Indian advocates may find themselves under stricter government oversight and limiting their ability to challenge state actions. The situation in Poland serves as a cautionary tale emphasising the role of an independent legal profession as a safeguard against authoritarianism, and the backlash from the European Union and human rights organisations highlights how such reforms can negatively impact democratic principles and relations.  

Beyond historical precedents, the moral responsibility of the legal profession is further reflected by its role in social movements and the guardian of fundamental rights. The Indian independence movement itself was led by lawyers like Gandhi, Ambedkar, and Nehru, who applied their legal expertise to challenge colonial rule and advocate for social justice. Their ability to be critical and function independently of executive control was crucial in shaping India’s constitutional values. Post-independence, public interest litigation (PIL) became an important tool in defending human rights, allowing marginalized communities to seek justice. However, the Bill threatens to limit lawyers engaging in collective action, making it more difficult to resist government overreach. This raises an important moral question: can a legal system truly serve justice if its practitioners are stripped of the ability to dissent against injustice? 

Public morality, in a democratic society, is not simply about maintaining order but about upholding ethical governance and the power to question authority when necessary. By seeking to regulate legal professionals in a way that aligns them more closely with executive interests, the Bill risks distorting the moral foundation of the legal profession. If advocates are unable to challenge unjust laws, resist executive overreach, or represent clients without fear of state interference, then the legal system ceases to be an instrument of justice and instead becomes a mechanism for enforcing power. The proposed reforms, therefore, must be critically assessed not only in terms of their legal implications but also for their impact on the moral and ethical integrity of India’s democratic institutions. 

Additionally, the increased financial barriers and control over enrolment could result in lower numbers of entries by new advocates. The lack of diversity would further diminish the representation of such marginalized voices within the legal system, tilting the scales of justice in favour of the privileged and powerful. By imposing tighter controls on who can practice law, how legal professionals operate, and how they engage with the judiciary, this Bill risks turning advocates into extensions of the executive branch. This shift undermines the adversarial system of justice, where independent lawyers serve as a critical check on governmental power. 

Conclusion: 

If implemented, the Bill could weaken the judiciary’s ability to uphold constitutional rights by compromising the spirit of the Constitution, shifting the balance of power, and limiting the space for legal opposition. This could lead to the prevention of the effective exercise of judicial review and ultimately cause a threat to the rule of law and democratic principles. Such legislation can also affect India’s international reputation on democratic values and the rule of law.  

Therefore, protecting the independence of the legal profession is not merely about preserving professional privileges; it is about ensuring the continued existence of an independent judiciary capable of defending fundamental rights and upholding democratic values.  

Author’s Bio:

Anubhi Srivastava is a B.A. LL.B. student at Jindal Global Law School and a columnist at CNES. 

Image Source: https://lexlife.in/2021/08/02/judicial-activism/