In a landmark move that sent ripples through India's legal community, the Union Law and Justice Ministry's draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, proposed for the first time to recognise in-house legal professionals as “legal practitioners.” The draft bill's swift withdrawal following protests from the Bar Council of India has highlighted the complex challenges of modernising India's legal framework.

• India’s general counsel seek legal privilege protection and right to represent their corporate employers.
• The government attempted historic recognition of in-house lawyers but withdrew after facing strong opposition.
• The bill's withdrawal signals ongoing tension between traditional practice and modern corporate law.

On Feb. 13, India’s Union Law and Justice Ministry published the draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025. This marked the first time that in-house legal professionals, or general counsels, were formally recognised in the legal framework as “legal practitioners” – a step that many in the corporate legal world had been anticipating for decades.

The ministry positioned the amendment as necessary “to address contemporary challenges and meet the needs of a growing nation,” adding that the reforms would “focus on improving legal education, equipping lawyers to meet the demands of a rapidly changing world, and raising professional standards.”

The exclusion of general counsel from the definition of “legal practitioners” in the original Advocates Act of 1961 stemmed from the legal landscape of that era. The concept of in-house counsel was virtually non-existent, with lawyers considered independent agents of the court rather than organisational employees. This perspective aligned with the traditional British legal system India had inherited.

However, the draft bill contained provisions that the Bar Council of India (BCI) perceived as threatening to its autonomy, such as government nominations to the BCI and regulations for foreign lawyers and firms. This led to immediate criticism from the legal fraternity. By Feb. 24, lawyers had begun striking, and on Feb. 26, the ministry withdrew the draft Bill for fresh consultation.

But amidst this controversy was a significant development for corporate legal departments: The expanded definition of a “legal practitioner” to include lawyers working with foreign law firms and corporate entities.

The push for recognition of in-house counsel isn't new, but the timing of this amendment attempt was significant. Manjaree Chowdhary, general counsel at Maruti Suzuki, explains: “The last five years have marked a watershed moment in the evolution of in-house legal roles in India. We've grown into a sizeable and influential community, significantly impacting both the top and bottom lines of our organisations through revenue generation and risk management. Given this transformation, the time was ripe to address our legal status and recognition. This amendment attempt, while not perfect, represents a crucial step in acknowledging the vital role in-house counsel play in India's corporate landscape.”

Lalit Bhasin, chairman of the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) has been a consistent supporter of in-house counsel rights. “In-house counsel are no less lawyers than those who practice in the court; their experience and exposure is quite wide and varied because they have to look into multiple compliances on behalf of their employer. Why should they not be allowed to be treated as legal practitioners – particularly for their own corporate employer?” he questions.

Bhasin draws a parallel: “Consider our high-ranking law officers such as the Attorney General and Solicitor General. Despite being government employees, they are permitted to represent public sector undertakings and, with appropriate authorisation, even private clients. This precedent raises an important question: Why should general counsel be subject to different standards? The roles are analogous in many ways, yet in-house counsel face unwarranted restrictions. This disparity in treatment calls for serious reconsideration of our approach to recognising and empowering corporate legal professionals.”

A TOKEN INCLUSION?

While the inclusion of general counsel as “legal practitioners” was revolutionary on paper, many in the in-house legal community found it to be largely symbolic, lacking the substantive rights they had hoped for.

The General Counsels' Association of India (GCAI), in its representation to India’s law minister dated Feb. 23, acknowledged the distinction between “advocate” and “legal practitioner” but recommended that legal practitioners “may opt to enrol and remain on the rolls and be regarded as 'advocates' during their employment; and thereafter be permitted to appear only for their employer during the duration of their employment.”

Akhil Prasad, general counsel at Boeing India, believes the amendment had the right intention but fell short on implementation. “Some rights have been overlooked – seniority, legal privilege, right to represent client. The law minister's initiative is laudable, but the associated rights of legal practitioners are not clearly explicit,” he notes.

Ashwani Tyagi, general counsel at Flipkart-owned super.money, argues for a more fundamental change: “As a category – why can't we be enrolled as an advocate itself? The Supreme Court has established that a lawyer's role is not just litigation work. How are we different from a law firm – non-litigation teams are doing similar work. We should be equated as an advocate – a non-litigation advocates category – with the right to be seen as legal professionals, ensuring quality for employers.”

Chowdhary adds historical context: “The profession of in-house counsel actually came into being only in the last 30 years after the economy opened. It's only about 20-25 years old.”

This explains the anomaly in the legal framework. When a lawyer becomes employed, their license gets suspended – a vestige of British conventions that the UK itself has moved away from.

THE PRIVILEGE PROBLEM

Perhaps the most critical missing element in the draft amendment was the extension of legal privilege to in-house counsel communications.

Chowdhary highlights this crucial omission: “The amendment fails to address legal privilege for in-house counsel, which exists in western jurisdictions. Our legal advice should be protected by confidentiality, just like external lawyers. Without this protection, we face enormous pressure when advising against risky business decisions – standing your ground becomes extraordinarily difficult when your communications aren't privileged.”

The GCAI's representation explicitly addressed this issue, stating that “Legal Practitioners should be considered as 'legal advisor' and enjoy the same privilege of confidentiality in respect of legal advice and communications with their organisations,” referring to Section 134 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

THE WAY FORWARD

Amar Sundaram, general counsel at NEC Corporation India, offers concrete suggestions for a revised amendment: “In-house counsel should be extended the privileged communication doctrine as is done internationally. Second, in-house counsel should be allowed to represent their own employer in court, arbitration tribunal, or any other statutory body. Third, in-house counsel, by virtue of their experience, can be effective mediators and arbitrators – why waste their experience in commercial legal advisory?”

“What we really need is a system that acknowledges our legal expertise and contributions while recognising the unique nature of our work. This could involve granting us certain rights, such as legal privilege, without necessarily equating us entirely with litigating advocates.” -- Rishi Gautam, Tata Consumer Products

The GCAI has requested that Section 29 of the Advocates Act be amended to recognise legal practitioners as “the only recognised class of persons entitled to practice law,” with clarification that legal practitioners in full-time employment shall be deemed to have practiced law during that period.

Rishi Gautam, general counsel at Tata Consumer Products, provides a balanced perspective on the issue: “While the recognition of in-house counsel as legal practitioners is a step in the right direction, we need to consider practical implications. In-house counsel typically don't have the capacity to practice in court due to their demanding roles within organisations. What we really need is a system that acknowledges our legal expertise and contributions while recognising the unique nature of our work. This could involve granting us certain rights, such as legal privilege, without necessarily equating us entirely with litigating advocates.”

“This is the first baby step,” says Bhasin at SILF, suggesting that proper regulations must follow. As the Ministry works on a fresh draft of the Bill, the in-house legal community remains cautiously optimistic. The withdrawal of the draft doesn't signal the end of their quest for recognition, but rather a pause in a much longer journey.

The next iteration of the Advocates (Amendment) Bill will be a litmus test for the government's commitment to modernising India's legal profession and recognising the evolved role of corporate legal departments in the contemporary legal landscape.

The path forward will require continued dialogue between lawmakers, the Bar Council of India, and in-house legal professionals to strike a balance that modernises the legal framework while preserving the integrity of the legal profession.

Chowdhary summarises the sentiment: “The world is changing, and the value that the in-house community provides to the corporate world is increasingly recognised globally. India needs to appreciate this change as well. The government has taken notice of our issues, which is a promising start.”