The Centre on Saturday agreed to reconsider its decision to bring about certain drastic changes to the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which the legal fraternity feared would seriously undermine the independence of advocates and its regulator, the Bar Council of India (BCI).

The NDA government’s decision came in the backdrop of an indefinite strike launched by district courts’ lawyers, which threatened to snowball into a nationwide stir with the Delhi High Court Bar Association giving a strike call.

The decision, attributed to the personal intervention of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is a significant retreat by the Centre, which is reminiscent of the withdrawal of the three contentious farm bills in 2023 in the face of countrywide protests by farmers for over a year.

According to BCI chairperson and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, the BCI has been in continuous dialogue with Union law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, raising the concerns of the legal fraternity. The minister has assured
that all contentious issues shall be thoroughly examined and appropriately addressed before finalising the bill, Mishra
said. Meghwal has reaffirmed that no provision shall be
enacted that undermines the autonomy, independence, and dignity of the legal profession, Mishra added.

“In view of these positive developments, the BCI urges all Bar Associations and legal professionals to refrain from premature protests or strikes. The government has demonstrated a constructive and receptive approach, and the BCI remains resolute in ensuring that the amendments to the Advocates Act, 1961, are made only after due consultation and in the best interests of the legal fraternity,” Mishra said in a statement.

Earlier, senior advocate and chairman of the All-India Congress Committee law, human rights and RTI department, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, had unequivocally expressed the forum’s solidarity with protesting lawyers in opposing the latest amendments to the Advocates Act, 1961.

Singhvi had flagged primary concerns in the proposed bill.

First, the proposed bill takes away lawyers’ rights to raise legitimate demands by way of a boycott or abstinence from work with the imposition of penal consequences and allows for excessive government interference in the composition, practice and procedure of professional regulatory bodies.

Second, the haste with which the government has attempted to pass the proposed bill without proper consultation evidences the end objective of the legislation i.e., to increase control of the Centre over the professional body.

Third, the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy of 2014 requires legislation (particularly one which impacts a specific group of stakeholders) to be documented and disclosed in the public domain prior to its enactment. A law amending the Advocates Act ought not to be passed without a consultative exercise with the relevant stakeholders.