Alfred, [forgetting his last name] is a Nigerian and was a partner with Titus for years.

Amarchand has recently hired an American (who could be of Indian/Pakistani ethinicity).

I know many Bhutanis and Nepalese who have graduated from Indian universities and have been enrolled with state bars..

to begin with, the bar council has to first consider working in law firms as practice of law… for them law begins at trial courts and probably ends up at Supreme court doorsteps… They have a rule which reuires advocates to surrender license if they take up a job. This rule smells not only stale (probably drafted half a century ago) but rotten. To get around this rule law firms retain lawyers on retainer!! (any sane man/court of law in the world would consider the retainer nothing more than another name of employment).

Let the Bar council first wake up from its deep slumber and then maybe think about corporate law as a form of lawyering!!

Corporate Lawyer, I agree that more than one foreign national has been enrolled with State Bar Councils and has got away with it. I guess this happened more because proof of nationality is not demanded at the time of enrollment, rather than because any State Bar Council waived the nationality requirement. Also, if the Indian Bar Council feels that law firms are not practising Indian law, there shouldn’t be any objection to foreign law firms entering India to give transactional advice.

You have referred to Amarchand Delhi hiring an Irish lawyer named Paku Khan a couple of weeks ago. Khan used to work for A&L Goodbody, one of the largest Irish law firms. Khan is supposed to have been born in the US to Indian parents and moved to Ireland in 2002. The only difference between Khan and other persons of Indian origin who return to India after having acquired foreign nationality is that the latter were at one point registered as Indian advocates with a State Bar Council. However, when Khan was hired, Pallavi Shroff had this to say:

“Shroff said that Khan was not an Indian qualified lawyer yet.

Due to the restrictions on foreign lawyers practising in India, explained Shroff, Khan would not be able to sign off on opinions or give legal advice and would be supervised by her throughout.

“We realise the restrictions that exist and intend to work within the four corners of the law,” she stressed, adding: “He’s a great resource.”

You can read the [url=http://www.legallyindia.com/20091109277/Job-moves/Amarchand-hires-Irish-competition-law-expert\]full article here[/url].

You are right when you say that advocates cease to be advocates when they take up employment. However, this provision is rarely enforced. When a lawyer goes in-house, s/he rarely informs the Bar Council. Law firms keep lawyers on retainers more to help them avoid tax than to get around this restriction on employment. In fact, I believe, employment by a lawfirm is specifically exempt from this rule. To cut to the chase, various restrictions on who can be an advocate, especially nationality based restrictions, are rarely enforced by State Bar Councils. This makes it all the more clear that the outcry over the entry of foreign law firms is just a political balloon.

This is really interesting and something I have been wondering about for a long time too.

So what is the actual position of the letter of the law? Is a non-Indian citizen, non-NRI or non-PIO, non-OCI, etc. not allowed to qualify as a lawyer in India?

Does the Advocates Act actually spell this out?

This of course also goes to the heart of one major anti-liberalisation argument (reciprocity), which I admit I have never quite been able to understand exactly.

Also, out of interest, what happens to lawyers employed by LPOs? Are they also on retainers or do most have to give up their BCI membership?

The [url=http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/Advocateact/advocateact.htm\]Advocates Act 1961[/url] provides that only an Indian citizen can be an advocate. [url=http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/Advocateact/Chapter3/S24.htm\]Section 24[/url] of this Act provides for this.

What this in effect means is that not only should one be an Indian citizen at the time of registration as an advocate, one must continue to be an Indian citizen to be an advocate. The moment you nationality changes, you become ineligible to be an advocate.

The rule that only a lawyer appearing in court can be an advocate is contained in the rules of various State Bar Councils. For example, section 49 of the [url=http://barcouncilofdelhi.in/Bar\_Council\_of\_Delhi\_RuleCopy.htm\]Bar Council of Delhi Rules[/url] say that

“49. An advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any person, government, firm, corporation or concern, so long as he continues to practice, and shall, on taking up any such employment, intimate the fact to the Bar Council on whose roll his name appears and shall thereupon cease to practice as an advocate so long as he continues in such employment.

Nothing in this rule shall apply to a Law Officer of the Central Government of a State or of any Public Corporation or body constituted by statute who is entitled to be enrolled under the rules of his State Bar Council made under Section 28 (2) (d) read with Section 24 (1) (e) of the Act despite his being a full time salaried employee.

Law Officer for the purpose of these Rules means a person who is so designated by the terms of his appointment and who, by the said terms, is required to act and/or plead in Courts on behalf of his employer.”

Kian, I ought to have clarified that India does not have dual nationality. Overseas Citizens of India and Persons of Indian Origin (PIO) are not Indian citizens. An NRI is an Indian citizen who is resident overseas. However, the terms NRI and PIO are usually mixed up.

OCIs and PIOs are not allowed to retain their Indian passports once they change their nationality. The OCI status is stamped on the foreign passport, like a permanent visa. PIOs just get a card which can be carried along with their foreign passports, but they don’t need an Indian visa if they have that PIO card.

In other words, OCIs and PIOs cannot be Indian advocates under the Advocates Act 1961.

Thanks Nomad, that is fascinating.

So the Advocates Act says: a person shall be qualified to be admitted if “(a) He is a citizen of India:

Provided that subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, a national of any other country may be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, if citizens of India, duly qualified, are permitted to practise law in that other country;”

So now I finally understand where the reciprocity argument in the liberalisation debate comes from.

However, and correct me if I am wrong, surely Indian citizens would have no problem to practice in the UK or US if they are duly qualified (e.g., they take the qualified lawyers transfer test (QLTT) in the UK).

So, on a reading of just that section of the Advocates Act, a UK lawyer with a law degree from a qualifying university should be allowed to qualify in India?

So now again I am confused by what the reciprocity argument actually means, if anything.

Does it mean that India needs to set up a QLTT test for foreign lawyers so there is reciprocity? Or that the UK or US should drop the requirement of the QLTT for Indian nationals, however unlikely?

I have asked lots of lawyers about this but no one has been able to explain it in a manner I understand.

2. Getting back to the initial point, in practice the restriction does not seem to matter in many cases if the BCI accidentally admits you without checking your nationality. And they usually do not. Is that right?

Kian

Indian citizens can and do practice in the UK or US if they are duly qualified. I am an Indian national - with an Indian passport - and am dual qualified - in India and the UK.

I am eligible for British nationality, having lived in London for over 9 years. If I become British, I could arque that I had enrolled as an adocate when I was an Indian national and can continue to be dual qualified. Mind you, the conservative view is that on acquiring foreign nationality, I would cease to be eligible to be an advocate.

There is no provision for a foreign national with a law degree from a qualifying university to automatically qualify in India. The Bar Council of India jhas the power to permit that, but a bespoke rule is necessary. So far, no such rule has been framed.

Kian - I think it means that the other country should let Indian citizens practice without requiring any additional eligibility requirement (such as QLTT) at par with its own citizens; then India would also accord similar treatment - I thin the “duly qualified” refers to being duly qualified in India. But this raises a questions - what if a jux such as NY requires a bar exam for all then surely the Advocates Act doesn’t expect Indian citizens to get a free ride without the bar exam just because India doesn’t have a bar exam to offer to US citizens on a reciprocal basis!

This rule seems to have been framed in an era when the drafters had no awareness of qualification requirements in other jurisdictions as India has none (ok may be an appreticeship period in litigation for some time in history - not sure if it still around - but was struck out for practice in the Supreme Court in 1997 I know) and expected nothing more onerous than perhaps an appreticeship period.

Having read Section 24 of the Advocates Act a while back, I could not determine where support would lie for an argument that a person who was validly admitted as an Advocate (being an Indian national at the time of admission) would cease to be an Advocate on ceasing to subsequently be an Indian citizen.

Section 24 only states that Indian citizenship is a condition to admission as an Advocate on the state rolls - there is nothing about it being a continuing condition for being retaind on the state rolls as an advocate.

Indeed, the other conditions to admission in Section 24 seem to lend themselves to the view that they are all ‘one-off’ conditions prior to eligibility rather than continuing conditions, since they are all ‘one-off’ events. These include (i) having to cross 21 years of age, (ii) having to obtained an appropriate law degree, (iii) having to pay relevant stamp duty etc.

Furthermore, Section 26A of the Advocates Act, which confers on state bar councils the power to remove an admitted Advocate from the rolls, only grants such power in the event the Advocate is dead or where the Advocate has himself/herself made the request for being removed from the rolls. The only other circumstance where the power to remove an advocate from the rolls can be exercised is for misconduct - but it would be very difficult to argue that ceasing to be an Indian citizen is “misconduct” in any natural sense of the word.

I note that one of the previous posters mentioned that there was an argument that ceasing to be an Indian citizen would not affect their existing enrolment as an Advocate (on the basis that they were an Indian citizen when they were originally admitted as Advocates) but that the “conservative view” would be to the contrary. I am not sure what the basis for this “conservative view” is. To me, such a “conservative view” would appear to be the one to do violence to the otherwise clear language of Section 24.

This is actually, I suspect, an extremely important argument for those Indiians who went abroad during the boom years, subsequently acquired citizenship of other countries (such as UK and US) and now wish to return. If the citizenship of these returning Advocates becomes a big issue in the future, I suspect they would be able to take considerable comfort in the manner in which Section 24 and the other provisions in the Advocates Act are currently drafted and any opposing views would be subject to strong judicial challenge.

Just my 2 INR.

This is an interesting topic that I have been trying to get an answer for some time now.

Back to the ‘advocates in law firms’ question - Currently, when a student graduates from any law college in India, they apply for and usually receive membership on the State Bar Council.

But the same student gets hired by A&M or some other firm right after they graduate. So, what happens to their Bar membership now? Does the student (who was admitted just weeks ago to the Bar) write to the Bar Council and asked to be removed from the State rolls?

Do they cease to be an advocate from that point forward?

If the answer is Yes, it seems really unfair to me. When a student graduates from law college, provided the student wants to practice law, there are only a couple of options available. One is to hang up a shingle and work on their own or the second is to work for a law firm/in-house. How can the Bar Council effectively take away the rights of that many students who will potentially work in law firms or in-house departments.

It is like taking away the medical licenses of doctors who want to work for a Hospital. But letting them keep their license if they want to be in private practice on their own.

It just does not make sense.

So, I am guessing, since this does not make sense, that advocates and law firms are doing ‘something’ to get around it. As suggested by several comments here, do all the law firms hire their new associates on a retainer basis, and therefore avoid the “being employed by a firm” trap that the Bar Council lays? Or is that more of an anomaly? Are new graduates entering law firms really willing to give up on their licenses to join a firm?

Great debate! Is there anyone who has had experience in doing this? (i.e., going abroad, losing Indian citizenship and trying to come back as a lawyer?)

And what is the process like when you go in-house? Is it easy to get your membership back? From one person I have spoken to it took 3 years to get their membership card back, by which point they had moved in-house again and gave it back.

Interesting, my personal view is that Section 24 of the Advocates Act does not prevent an advocate from switching nationality. The reason I talked of a conservative view to the contrary is this:

Currently the Bar Council of India and various State Bar Councils have taken the stand that foreign law firms cannot set up shop in India. This legal rationale behind this position is rarely elaborated or explained. For example, can Clifford Chance open an India office run entirely by Indian nationals? Going by the shrill rhetoric that comes from the Bar Council of India and various advocates associations, the answer seems to be No, even though such a firm would be no different from Amarchand or AZB. The only explanation given for this stand is that law firms cannot have foreign ownership, even though advocates are prohibited from being employed by any one, even an Indian owned law firm. Is there any law which says a few ‘advocates’ can’t band together and form an affiliate of a foreign law firm? No, not unless section 24 is conservatively interpreted to mean ‘advocates must all times be Indian citizens and only Indian citizens must be involved in the practice of law in India in any form.’

I agree that a positive and forward looking interpretation of Section 24 will be extremely helpful for those Indians who went abroad during the boom years, subsequently acquired citizenship of other countries (such as UK and US) and now wish to return.

Kian, most advocates don’t bother to inform the State Bar Council when they go in-house. Unlike the UK or the USA, there are no periodic filing of forms or payment of fees required for Indian advocates. So, once you register as an advocate, you are an advocate for life!

Nomad,

Thanks, I understand your point regarding the lack of clarity with respect to the statutory basis for denying foreign law firms entry into India, although I do not think the reason is ultimately related to an Advocate having to continue to be an Indian citizen after he/she has been duly enrolled (i.e. the point of our present idscussion).

The point with regard to foreign ownership of law firms is, in my view, this (and I confess I have not spent an inordinate amount of time dwelling on it as life is too short et. al!):

1. An advocate in India statutorily needs to be an individual, Section 24 makes this clear. A body corporate cannot be an advocate. Thus, advocates have always practiced as body sole proprietorships or as partnerships (in each case, no body corporate is involved) - I am not clear how the recently introduced Indian LLP entity will work in this context, i.e. does the Advocates act actually allow law firms to be constituted as LLPs;

2. Under BCI regulations, an advocate cannot enter into partnership with a non-advocate in a fim which practices Indian law. Thus, for instance, Indian advocates and Indian chartered accountants cannot be partners in an Indian firm which offers legal and accountancy advice (although each lawyer and accountant who offers the legal and accountancy advice, respectively, under the aegis of such firm would be individually qualified to do so under the Advocates Act and any similar eligibility statute for Indian accountants);

3. For a foreign law firm to ‘own’ an Indian law firm, it must somehow participate in partnership with the partners of the Indian law firm and have some ‘majority partnership rights’ in the partnership agreement governing such Indian law firm’. However, it cannot participate in such Indian law firm through a ‘body corporate’, since ‘body corporates’ cannot practice law in India and cannot be partners in Indian law firms. This would mean that the foreign law firm would need to become a partner in the Indian law firm through an entity without legal personality (such as an English limited partnership, so as to limit their liability with respect to the obligations of the Indian law firm);

4. Apart from potentially causing tremendous tax problems to the partners of the foreign law firm (because they might, indirectly, be deemed to have a ‘business connection’ (where they are rsident in a non-treaty jurisdiction) or a a ‘permanent establishment’ (where they are rsident in a treaty jurisdiction) as a result of such partnership interest in the Indian law firm, if the consequence of such structure is that persons who are not qualified as advocates in India are partners in such law firm, then this would also fall foul of Bar Council regulations and the principle identified in point 2 above;

5. If a contractual solution is pursued (i.e. foreign law firm enters into a contract with the Indian law firm whereby it is entitled to participate in X% of Indian law firm’s profits and share in [Y%] of Indian law firm’s costs, has veto rights on some actions by the Indian law firms etc.), this could still be construed as the foreign law firm becoming a partner in, or creating a new partnership with, the Indian law firm (since a partnership is, in essence, nothing more than a contract to do business with a view to sharing profits).

Accordingly, in my view, this is in essence what I think causes problems with respect to foreign law firms owning Indian law firms as of the present date - i.e. the rules that only individuals can be advocates in India and that advocates cannot partner with non-advocates to run a law firm. It has very little to do with the continuing Indian citizenship of an advocate who was an Indian when he/she originally enrolled.

I would note that the court cases alleging that W&C, Ashursts and Chadbourne & Park wrongfully practiced Indian law also contains additional arguments about the breach by them of certain exchange control regulations pursuant to which they were originally accorded permission to open ‘liaison offices’ in India. This argument is not relevant for the purposes of our present discussion.

If you read through all of gunk I just wrote, I applaud your perserverence! If you think it makes sense, I applaud your bravery! :)

Apologies for any typos in the above post, I did not have time to spell-check when posting and could not easily locate any means of subsequently editing it (perhaps I need to be a registered user to edit?).

[Yes, as a registered user you can edit your posts for some time after they go live. -Kian

Ps: very well considered post, I thought, applause! :) ]

Does anyone know if the foeign nationals who complete the BA LLB course from say NALSAR or NLSIU get an equal shot at campus interviews as their Indian counterparts?

Do India-based LPOs or law firms sideline foreigners completely from any campus hiring that they do? Do they hire foreign students?

Is it the same for foreign firms?

I’m wondering if the foreign nationals (particularly those of Indian origin) are able to find jobs through the placement cycle.

I think there is no bar as such…because in my initial years when i was in Mumbai, there was a foreigner lady who used appear in Bombay High Court…probably she was qualified from India itself in law and enrolled as an advocate with Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa…i dont think there should be any problem…i have even seen foreign interns in law firms in India either doing law in India or abroad…

Interesting, this is very sensible and very useful! Many thanks!

Like any other law in India, Advocates Act are not implemented by Bar Councils. Many lawyers continue to have the valid registration even though their lincence must be cancelled.

It is a really very interesting issue and need to be discussed as the concept of OCI was introduced much later to The Advocates Act.

Trustman, the outcome of the discussions so far has been that as long as one is an Indian national at the time of enrollment as an advocate, it doesn’t matter if nationality changes later. One doesn’t have to be an Indian citizen to continue as an advocate. Indian citizenship is only an entry level condition. Even if an advocate becomes a foreign national and does not opt to be an overseas citizen of India, s/he continues to be an advocate. Of course, an OCI has the right to work in India. A foreign national will need a work permit.

I read with interest the public debate undertaken by our Learned friends . I entirely agree to the views expressed by Karma 1 .

The definition of the indian citizenship shall be deemed to include all those who are entitled to the Indian citizenship in accordance with the constitution of india .

Is it not to true that we have some politicians who are holding the highest offices of the nation despite of the fact that they were not born in India?.

Turning now to the point about the Regulations rules and Acts by the professional bodies one must bear in mind that any such regulations should always be consistent with the Constitution of India

Are we to permit professional bodies to set aside the Rules of Natural Justice ?

It is also relevant to note and consider the history and the development of our legal system.

Did not Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel Pandit Nehru Phirozshah Mehata practiced in India and also abroad despite of the fact they were qualified in England ?

Is it not true that a great Diplomat and Politician named Krishna Menon held the political offices in India and also in England?

In the modern days of compuer technology jurisdiction boundaries are so to speak becoming faint

Advocates may not necessarily have to appear in the court because as we all know desk bound lawyers who only do the advisory work i. e as Solicitor can work anywhere from the world

So this debate should please be considered in the broder perspective bearing in mind the massive globlization .

In my view we Lawyers should be devoting much more time in considering how to reform our existing laws so that there can be justice for all people in india rather than trying to serve and keep as clients only the rich and famous and the multi nationals .

Time has come that we lawyers come out of our own ”ivory castle” and do some pro-bono work otherwise the so called NGO with their hidden agenda will divide the society to the extent that we might loose our national identity which is of much more importance then the dual nationality or OCI etc

Best Wishes &

Kind Regards

Bhupendra k vyas

If you look at the Chapter 1 of the Advocacy Act, Point 2 “Definitions”, subpoint (ix) it states, “(xi) ‘Indian or Indian national’ used in these Rules means a natural person having citizenship of India and includes Non Resident Indian or Person of Indian Origin enjoying double citizenship in India.” And so, this clearly implies that Indian or Indian National, wherever it is used in this Act is a person having citizenship of India OR non-resident Indian or Person of Indian origin.

Now if you look at Chapter V Recognition of Degree in law of a Foreign University,” point 37. “Degree of a Foreign University obtained by an Indian citizen” it states:

“If an Indian national having attained the age of 21 years and obtains a degree in law from a Foreign University such a degree in law can be recognized for the purpose of enrolment on fulfillment of following conditions:

(i) completed and obtained the degree in law after regularly pursuing the course for a period not less than three years in case the degree in law is obtained after graduation in any branch of knowledge or for a period of not less than five

years if admitted into the integrated course after passing +2 stage in the higher secondary examination or its equivalent; and

(ii) the University is recognized by the Bar Council of India and candidate concerned passes the examination conducted by the Bar Council of India in substantive and procedural law subjects, which are specifically needed to practice law in India and prescribed by the Bar Council of India from time to time as given in the schedule XIV. Provided that those who joined LL.B. course in a recognized Foreign University prior to 21st February, 2005 the date of notification in this regard by the Bar Council of India need not seek for such examination, other aforesaid condition remain same.

Provided the same privilege shall be also extended to Persons of Indian Origin having double citizenship in India.”

So what we can see from this is that Indian National includes citizen of India, NRI or PIO. However, to practice in India you have to have the citizenship requirement AND education requirement. What I mentioned was the citizenship requirement for PIO’s. The education requirement is to have the law school in US or any other country get recognized by the Bar Council of India. This is a free process. Then that makes you as a PIO eligible to sit and take a six paper bar examination for Indian nationals (including PIO’s). Upon passing this examination then a PIO can completely practice in India. I believe the newest version of the Advocacy Act extends Indian national definition to OCI also. So if one is a PIO or OCI, the above process is required to be able to practice in India.

If you look at the Chapter 1 of the Advocacy Act, Point 2 “Definitions”, subpoint (ix) it states, “(xi) ‘Indian or Indian national’ used in these Rules means a natural person having citizenship of India and includes Non Resident Indian or Person of Indian Origin enjoying double citizenship in India.” And so, this clearly implies that Indian or Indian National, wherever it is used in this Act is a person having citizenship of India OR non-resident Indian or Person of Indian origin.

Now if you look at Chapter V Recognition of Degree in law of a Foreign University,” point 37. “Degree of a Foreign University obtained by an Indian citizen” it states:

“If an Indian national having attained the age of 21 years and obtains a degree in law from a Foreign University such a degree in law can be recognized for the purpose of enrolment on fulfillment of following conditions:

(i) completed and obtained the degree in law after regularly pursuing the course for a period not less than three years in case the degree in law is obtained after graduation in any branch of knowledge or for a period of not less than five

years if admitted into the integrated course after passing +2 stage in the higher secondary examination or its equivalent; and

(ii) the University is recognized by the Bar Council of India and candidate concerned passes the examination conducted by the Bar Council of India in substantive and procedural law subjects, which are specifically needed to practice law in India and prescribed by the Bar Council of India from time to time as given in the schedule XIV. Provided that those who joined LL.B. course in a recognized Foreign University prior to 21st February, 2005 the date of notification in this regard by the Bar Council of India need not seek for such examination, other aforesaid condition remain same.

Provided the same privilege shall be also extended to Persons of Indian Origin having double citizenship in India.”

So what we can see from this is that Indian National includes citizen of India, NRI or PIO. However, to practice in India you have to have the citizenship requirement AND education requirement. What I mentioned was the citizenship requirement for PIO’s. The education requirement is to have the law school in US or any other country get recognized by the Bar Council of India. This is a free process. Then that makes you as a PIO eligible to sit and take a six paper bar examination for Indian nationals (including PIO’s). Upon passing this examination then a PIO can completely practice in India. I believe the newest version of the Advocacy Act extends Indian national definition to OCI also. So if one is a PIO or OCI, the above process is required to be able to practice in India.

Dear person of indian origin

You are obviously referring to an Advocates Act that is not available to the rest of us. May be you are looking at a proposed amendment. The Advocates Act 1961 I have access to, does not define Indians or India nationals.

see http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/legal-education/edu-rules-chapter-1.php. The definiton there is

xi) “Indian or Indian national” used in these Rules means a natural person having citizenship of India and includes Non Resident Indian or Person of Indian Origin enjoying double citizenship in India.

The Rules on Legal Education (“Education Rules”) were approved and adopted by the Bar Council of India at its meeting held on 14th September, 2008. These Rules have been made under inter alia, Section 24(1)(c)(iii) and (iiia) of the Advocates Act, 1961 for the purpose of setting standards for legal education and recognising of degrees in law for the purpose of enrolment as an advocate.

Section 24(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 sets out various conditions for enrolment as an advocate. Of this Section 24(1)(a) requires Indian citizenship at the time of enrollement. Section 24(1)(c) sets out the educational qualifications needed.

It is interesting to note that the Education Rules are useful only in interpreting Section 24(1)(c) and not Section 24(1)(a).

Section 2(ix) of the Education Rules states that (xi) “Indian or Indian national” used in these Rules means a natural person having citizenship of India and includes Non Resident Indian or Person of Indian Origin enjoying double citizenship in India.

The sad part is that India doesn’t permit dual nationality and hence the phrase ‘double citizenship’ is very bad drafting. Further, Section 24(1)(c) does not use the words “Indian” or “Indian national.” Section 241(a) uses the words “citizen of India” and it is this phrase that needs to be interpreted.

In any event, the Education Rules can be taken to reflect the widespread acceptance that even Overseas Citizens of India can be Advocates if they were Indian citizens at the time of enrolment. Can they also be taken to mean, that the Bar Council of India would permit an OCI to enrol if s/he has a

[url=http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/legal-education/foreign-deg-bci.php\]recognised foreign degree?[/url]

Shall we wrap up all the fuss?

If you are a PIO or an OCI, and you have a bachelors degree and a law degree from a foreign qualifying university, then you are eligible to enroll as an advocate in India.

If you have completed or started a qualifying foreign law degree before February 2005, you don’t even need to sit for any further examinations in India.

Logically extending this, a foreign national who has a bachelors degree and a law degree from a foreign qualifying university is ‘duly qualified’ and should be able to take advantage of the reciprocity provisions within the Advocates Act.

It’s quite clear that Indians can practice in the US, or the UK, or virtually any other jurisdiction for that matter, if they are duly qualified to do so. Therefore, foreigners who hold degrees from qualifying foreign universities must also be duly qualified in India.

Ironic isn’t it, that all those Indian nationals who went to Buckingham and Cardiff can practice law here without having sat a single Indian legal paper?

On that basis, the ‘intellectual’ argument for keeping foreign lawyers out of India is, and always has been, utter nonsense.

Period.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/oci-cardholders-can-practise-in-india-now/14/48/345700/economy here it is. Legislative intent to the fullest to allow OCI’s to practice law in India. Question still remains about those who are eligible to be OCI’s and are foreign born Persons of Indian origin. There is no Foreign direct investment policy in regards to the legal industry. It would be wise to allow such FDI because the law for partnerships is that advocates can only form partnerships with other advocates. If PIO’s are eligible, then Indian law firms can start finally moving out into the US and UK legal market; thus grow and provide more jobs for Indians.

Additionally, since the amount of Indian-Americans for example is a few million, the amount of Indian-American lawyers is very low and those who want to facilitate US-India business even lower. Thus, branches set up in India would undoubtedly have to hire Indian trained and qualified lawyers, providing more jobs for Indians.

Janet Depening is a partner of Depening and Depening, headquartered in Chennai. She is a foriegn citizen and not even a qualiied lawyer.

Ajay Bhargava, Partner of Khaitan &Co is a foreign national and enrolled with bar Council for the fist time as a foreign national

I guess its a free for all

My question is the other way round…can an OCI be enrolled with the bar council of India if he/she has successfully completed the LLB degree from any of the law colleges in India? And then practice as an advocate in any of the Indian courts?

Rule 4 (Res. No. 6/1997) of Bar Council of India Rules state “A person of Indian origin with foreign nationality who is so otherwise qualified to practise law in India and who wants to permanently settle down in India would be allowed to be enrolled and/or practise law subject to the rules of apprenticeship framed by the Bar Council of India. In case it is found that such a person is not ordinarily residing in India, his name would be removed from the roll of Advocates maintained by the State Bar Council”.

Only indian citizens(citizan defined under features ofconsitituion) are eligible to enroll as advocate and any full time salried empolyees are also not eligible to enroll as advocate under rule 49 of advocates act.

enrollment of advocate is completly different from practising..

any person who is completed 3 yrs or 5 yrs full time BL / LLB from indian university with BCI recongised are eliglbe to enroll as advocates in state concils..

and next..

they have to obtaion certificate of partactie, this can be done by qualifying the AIBE exam from AIBC which conducts the exam.

its and 100 Mrks and open book.. only after qualifiying the exam you are eligible to practise.

conclusion..

foreign nationals can’t be advocates..

to become one , here is the procedure..

1.become citizen of india,

2.complete the BL/LLB course.

3.don’t have any employment.(resign if you are fulltime salired employee)

4.register as advocate in any state coucil

5.Pass the All indi bar examiniation for certificate of practise..

with this any one in the world can be an advocate .. let me know if you guys have any clarifications

Here you go…

http://moia.gov.in/services.aspx?id1=35&id=m3&idp=35&mainid=23

Ministry has issued notifications granting registered OCIs further benefits as under:

a.Parity with Non-Resident Indians in the matter of inter-country adoption of Indian children ;

b.Parity with resident Indian nationals in matters of tariffs in domestic air fares ;

c.Parity with domestic Indian visitors in respect of entry fee for visiting national parks and wildlife sanctuaries in India ;

d.Parity with non-resident Indians in respect of:

i.Entry fees for visiting the national monuments, historical sites and museums in India;

ii.Practicing the following professions in India, in pursuance of the provisions contained in the relevant Acts, namely:

■Doctors, dentists, nurses and pharmacists;

■Advocates;

■Architects; and

■Chartered Accountants; and

e.Entitlement to appear for the All India Pre-Medical Test or such other tests to make them eligible for admission in pursuance of the provisions contained in the relevant Acts

It is interesting that you say that those who began or finished their law degrees before 2005 need not do any further exams in India. Where did you read this?

I began my degree in England in 2004 and graduated in 2007. Yet, the state bar council I have applied to says I have to do this 6-paper exam in Indian law. Any references would be of help. The laws and rules relating to becoming an advocate and anything to do with the bar councils in general is a huge mess.

Hi All I would like some help.

I am a english qualified lawyer recently moved to Mumbai. I would like to know how to apply to State Council for enrollment please.

Thanks

First of all I would advise you to be patient. I applied two years ago and only now (finally) it seems like I’m going to get my sanad (practicing certificate) soon.

How you would go about it depends on your citizenship status. Which of the following are you:

- Indian citizen

- Person of Indian Origin

- Other?

If other, what is your citizenship?

Secondly, what is your educational background? Is your law degree recognised by the Bar Council of India (see their website)? On which date did you start your law degree?

Esq.

Hi Esq, that’s really interesting, I’d like to hear more about your story and how you went about it, step-by-step… Was the BC helpful or was it all a pain in the backside?

“Pain in the backside” to a much greater extent than “helpful”. I’d rather not say too much at this point though as my application is (I hope) about to bear fruit. However, if anyone with ‘unusual’ background or education needs advice on how to apply or just on what the rules say I would be happy to help as I have come to know those rules reasonably well.

Esq.

I am an Indian Citizen with an Indian Passport and hence do not have a PIO or an OCI. I have completed my BA (in india) and LLB (abroad). Do i still have to do the qualifying exam because it clearly states that it is only for a person of indian origin or overseas citizen of india.

Please reply as soon as possible.

Regards.

Ramya

Dear Ramya,

The exam in Indian law is there for those who have taken their LLB abroad. It’s actually designed for Indian citizens. Basically,

1. make sure your foreign university (and Indian one I suppose) are recognised by the BCI. They have a list of recognised foreign universities on their website. If it is not recognised you’ll have to get it recognised, which could be a lot of work.

2. if you began your LLB on or after 25 February 2005 you will need to take the Indian law exam (I can provide you with the relevant official Notification if you like). You can find the materials for the December exam on the BCI website. The BCI are likely to hold a new exam within two or so months, so check with their Education Department.

Good luck

ESQUIRE.

Oh, and where does it state it is for PIOs? I have not seen any such information on the exam information. Are we talking about the same exam?

Hi,

Thank you Esquire. I have checked that and it is recognised and i graduated in 2011 so will have to do it. Is there any guide or Exam Papers I can practice on? Does the Bar Council provide them like they do for AIBE? It seems unfair if they do not provide any guidance.

Thank You,

Ramya Ramadas

Dear Ramya,

I don’t know of any supporting materials, however I suspect that if you did a degree abroad and scored good grades chances are you’ll pass this exam without too much trouble. I don’t have to do it because I started my degree in 2004. I wouldn’t worry about ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’. As far as I know the AIBE is pretty easy to pass anyway and the fact that anyone is making a fuss over it speaks volumes of the IQ level of the average Indian law graduate.

The BCI do have a syllabus. Just learn the Indian law contained in that and you’ll be fine.

Good luck.

ESQUIRE

Hello, Ramya - I am planning on writing the foreigners exam as well. I am based in the US, and will come to India just for writing this exam. Can you message me your contact details so that we can stay in touch before the exam date.

Sorry, I am the “Message Me” post above. I forgot to login before I posted, so my username didn’t show up. Please send me a PM on this profile, so that we can exchange contact details.

Dear Esquire,

Thanks a lot for the information.

I could not find the material online so please can you help me out with that.

Regards,

Ramya.

Here are the materials

I can’t attach the file – some technical problem. Email me at patryk.z[at]gmail.com and I’ll send you the file.

Dear Esquire,

I would greatly appreciate any notifications and I have been checking the website frequently. Please do let me know where the materials are for the December exam as I was not able to find it.

Regards,

Ramya

Please ask rrao to email it to you. For some reason I cannot access page 4 of this discussion, nor attach pdf files.

ESQ.

Hey guys,

I am an Indian citizen who will soon be a qualified lawyer overseas. My university is currently not recognized by the bar council of India. I might be admitted as a solicitor very soon.

If I choose to return to India, how would I be eligible to practice law? Do I need to sit the LLB again or can indian citizens who have qualified as solicitors overseas return and practice in India?

Will appreciate your response.

Hello Sir,

I am from Pondicherry (TN Bar) born and brought up in India. I got my US Citizenship in 2008 and moved back to India as an OCI,aged 41. Enrolled in LLB in KSLU 2009 and completed in Jan 2014. Will I face problems for enrollment in TN BC ?

Thanks

Raj

Dear Rajen,

You shouldn’t have any problems. Under the s 7A Citizenship Act OCIs are considered Indian nationals (subject to certain caveats) and a Notification of the central government dated 5 January 2009 specifically states that OCIs “shall be entitled” to pursue “the following professions in India … namely … (ii) advocates …”. If you have any problems you can contact me directly on at (parivar108[at-the-rate-of]gmail[dot]com,) and I’ll give you some more tips.

ESQUIRE

Dear Sadhwani,

I don’t know if anyone responded to this, but as far as I know you have two options: either you can ask the Bar Council of India to recognise your university. That might take some time. Or you can ‘cross-qualify’ as a solicitor. I don’t know much about the latter route, but I think there is some guidance on it on the BCI web-site. I would suggest you contact them directly to enquire.

ESQUIRE

Hi,

I am an Indian National, practicing law since 2007. I am enrolled with the Bar Council of my State and have been practicing in the Trial Courts, District Court and High Court.

I am also eligible for foreign nationality.

Would like your advice as to the following:

A. If I register as a foreign national and obtain my OCI status, (considering I am a resident of India) does that permit me to continue practicing law?

B. If yes, do I need to carry out any correspondence with the Bar Council for permission or do I need to intimate them of the same?

Thank You

Hi Kian, I am not sure if your question has been clarified.. LOok at SO 36 attached. OCIs can practice as lawyers in India.

All,

I have read all your views and reflections with great interest. I am an NRI holding an OCI card. I have graduated from a law college and India and used to practice law in India until recent.

I now intend and want to get back into practising law in India.

Is there any notification or has it been stated in any precedents that an NRI of Indian origin can practise law in India,?

Ferdi

Hey, I am in the similar situation as Kian. could you forward me the attachments where OCIs can practice as lawyers in India.

Your assistance is greatly appreciated

Thanks

Ferdi

Good morning, Please note that this answer was given almost 9 years back. There is a government notification which allows NRIs and OCIs to practice law in India. A lot of mischievous people. If a OCI studied in India and knows the Indian law. Why cant he practice in ?. Competition only improves dedication and competence. Thank you.

Good morning, Yes, there are government notifications and Supreme Court rulings which allow an NRI and OCI to practice in India. Provided they satisfy other requirements we can not see why they can not practice in India. What is required is knowledge. If they studied in India and know the Indian law, there is no reason to debar. Competition is good to improve dedication and competence. Thank you.

Good morning, Yes, there are government notifications and Supreme Court rulings which allow an NRI and OCI to practice in India. Provided they satisfy other requirements we can not see why they can not practice in India. What is required is knowledge. If they studied in India and know the Indian law, there is no reason to debar. Competition is good to improve dedication and competence. Thank you.

Even I had the same question and finally got the answer.

Thanks for this thread.

Informative and helped me out

PIOs just get a card which can be carried along with their foreign passports, but they don’t need an Indian visa if they have that PIO card. In other words, OCIs and PIOs cannot be Indian advocates.

So this is not any kind of issue.even many such candidates found to do practice in India.Even they have return from Uk and Us but they are doing practice in India.Practical knowledge matters.Degree can be from anywhere.

Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 provides that an advocate must be an Indian Citizen. During that time, the Citizenship was defined to be only one Citizenship and there was no Overseas Citizenship which came to force after 2000. However, when a Foreign National obtains Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI), in the OCI Card it is very much clearly written that the OCI holder can be on par with NRIs except in voting/electoral and acquired agricultural lands. Here we need to see that NRI is not foreign national but he is Indian national but residing abroad. So, the OCI holder is given privilege of being considered on par with NRIs means that the OCI holder is considered on par with the Citizen of India very clearly. So, the Foreign National with OCI Card, can enroll as advocate. But when the OCI card is not there, then Foreign Nationals cannot enroll as an advocate in accordance with Seciton 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961, unless and until it is amended.

My question is can an OCI study law in India? Maybe she won’t work after getting law degree.

Hello, I would like to know whether an OCI (born a US National, obtained an OCI before permanently shifting to India) and educated with a B.A., LL.B. in India would be eligible to enrol in the Bar.

Any specifics about the Karnataka Bar would be appreciated.

@kianganz