The recent rulings of the Supreme Court have laid heavy emphasis on the lawfulness and limitations regarding “combinations” or collaborations between Indian advocates and foreign lawyers. While the BCI Regulations 2025 did create the concept of “Indian-foreign law firms”, hybrid entities where Indian advocates and foreign lawyers would work under one unified framework, the Court did not now go so far as to give clear, conclusive guidance as to the scope and nature of such partnerships.
The absence of any judicially definitive pronouncement leaves it uncertain whether foreign lawyers can meaningfully collaborate with Indian advocates, other than perhaps advising them on foreign or international law, without really infringing Section 29 of the Advocates Act. Section 33 limits the “practice of law” in India to Indian advocates, and Section 24(1)(a) bars foreign lawyers from practicing Indian law, including litigation, unless they are citizens of India. In that sense, the Court’s reaffirmation of this principle further strengthens the legal bar against foreign lawyers from occupying roles customarily reserved for Indian advocates.
Another key judicial concern relates to foreign lawyers practicing in the realm of international commercial arbitration in India. The Supreme Court had expressly stated that legal counsel appearing therein must be subjected to the ethical and professional conduct rules of India. Since foreign lawyers do not come within the purview of the ethical regime under the Advocates Act, their role was limited to non-litigious advice only in foreign or international law. Thus, Indian parties are protected, and uniform standards of professional conduct are maintained in arbitration proceedings.
Controlled Fly-In, Fly-Out Access: Limited but Not Absolute
The Supreme Court recognized the practical need for foreign lawyers to interact with Indian clients under the fly-in, fly-out model, but specified it to be a limited privilege. Foreign lawyers may only make temporary and casual visits to India, avoiding any sort of becoming a regular or permanent presence, which could have gone against the unauthorized practice limitations. The BCI’s 60-day limit for an advisory visit indeed goes with this line of thinking, even though the Court declined to set strict rules on what does or does not constitute a casual visit, thereby allowing some leeway in interpretation and enforcement.
Collaborative Practice Models: An Unresolved Puzzle
Presently, a legal debate in the country revolves around how far an Indian advocate may consort with a foreign lawyer. While the establishment of Indian-foreign law firms by the BCI has given rise to a dual practice structure, where Indian lawyers continue to practice Indian law while advising on foreign law matters, the Supreme Court has yet to lay down in clear terms how these bodies should operate in practice, especially in issues of liability, ethics, and management structure.
This grey area creates a lot of operational issues for firms aiming at creating truly seamless cross-border legal services and raises doubts on whether the arrangements comply with Indian laws disallowing foreign legal practice. Until guidelines are promulgated, the entities have to tread cautiously through this grey area.
Reciprocity as a Regulatory Safeguard
Reciprocity is a fundamental principle governing the regulation of foreign lawyers in India. According to Supreme Court rulings, practice rights must be granted only if there is an equivalent access granted to Indian lawyers abroad, thereby safeguarding the interests of domestic legal professionals in India, while carefully permitting some foreign participation in the Indian legal market.
Conclusion
Supreme Court decisions confirm the BCI’s regulatory framework for 2025, under which foreign lawyers are excluded from all but advisory roles in foreign and international law, physical presence in India is barred, and an ethics code overrides arbitration. However, the legality of, and inner workings of, those so-called “combinations” between Indian advocates and foreign lawyers remain, for the most part, undefined, leaving an important hole in the regulatory maze.
This needs to be resolved in order to put clear, workable models of collaboration into place that both marry with Indian legal requirements and allow for proper rendition of cross-border legal services. The very change in the frame speaks for India’s attempts to carve a niche for itself as a legal hub of global standards without trampling on the domestic legal profession’s exclusivity and integrity.
