The Indian legal profession has historically been closed to foreign practitioners — a legacy of regulatory caution and protectionist instincts. However, the recent case of a South Korean citizen permitted to practice law in India, albeit in a limited capacity, marks a noteworthy shift. It reflects not only regulatory evolution but also India’s increasing alignment with global legal standards.
The Legal Framework: Barriers and Gateways
Under the Advocates Act, 1961, only Indian citizens are eligible to be enrolled as advocates and thereby entitled to practice in Indian courts. However, Section 47 of the Act introduces the principle of reciprocity, allowing the Bar Council of India (BCI) to permit foreign nationals to practice law in India if their home country provides similar opportunities to Indian lawyers.
The Supreme Court of India in Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji (2018) clarified that foreign lawyers can offer advisory services relating to foreign law, participate in international arbitration, and operate on a “fly in, fly out” basis — as long as they don’t practice Indian law or appear in Indian courts.
Regulatory Reforms: BCI’s 2023 Notification
A major regulatory milestone came in March 2023, when the BCI notified the Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022. These rules allow foreign lawyers and law firms to:
- Practice foreign and international law in India
- Provide non-litigious legal services.
- Advise on international arbitration
- Set up offices in India (under strict conditions)
However, their right to appear before any court, tribunal, or authority remains restricted.
In the case of Daeyoung Jung, a South Korean national seeking enrolment as an advocate in India, the Delhi High Court provided a significant interpretation of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Court’s Interpretation:
- Eligibility Under Section 24(1)(a): The Court emphasized that the Advocates Act does not categorically bar foreign nationals from enrolling as advocates in India. Specifically, the proviso to Section 24(1)(a) allows for the enrolment of foreign nationals if Indian citizens are permitted to practice law in the applicant’s home country.
- Reciprocity Principle: The Court noted that South Korea does not impose discriminatory practices against Indian citizens seeking to practice law there. Therefore, under the reciprocity principle embedded in the Advocates Act, Jung was eligible for enrolment.
- BCI’s Refusal Overturned: The Bar Council of India’s (BCI) refusal to consider Jung’s application solely based on his nationality was deemed unjustified. The Court clarified that Jung was not attempting to establish a foreign legal practice in India but was a foreign national with a law degree recognized under Indian law, seeking enrolment accordingly.
- Directive for Immediate Enrolment: In March 2025, the Delhi High Court directed the BCI to enrol Jung within two days, highlighting that there was no legal basis to withhold his registration in the absence of a stay on the previous order favoring his enrolment.
This case underscores the Court’s commitment to upholding the principles of fairness and reciprocity in the legal profession, ensuring that qualified individuals are not denied opportunities based on nationality alone.
Global Context and Implications
This development aligns with India’s obligations under the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which promotes liberalization of professional services across member countries. The liberalization is also seen as a way to enhance India’s attractiveness as an international arbitration hub and facilitate foreign investment.
In Mr. Jung’s case, his ability to bridge Indian and Korean legal frameworks has made him invaluable to Korean investors and Indian firms engaging in cross-border trade. His journey offers a template for others: compliance with Indian education and visa regulations, alignment with reciprocity norms, and a non-litigation focused legal role.
India’s cautious opening of its legal market is neither sudden nor absolute, but it is unmistakably moving in the direction of cross-border collaboration. The case of the Korean legal professional is symbolic — it reflects India’s readiness to selectively integrate foreign expertise without undermining the structure of its domestic legal practice.
As global legal services become more interconnected, India’s regulatory choices will continue to define its role in the international legal order.
References and Further Reading:
- Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji & Ors., Supreme Court Judgment (2018)
- Bar Council of India Rules on Foreign Lawyers, March 2023 Notification (PDF)
- The Hindu – “Foreign law firms, lawyers can now practice in India: Bar Council” (March 15, 2023)
- LiveLaw – “BCI Notifies Rules For Registration Of Foreign Lawyers And Law Firms In India” (March 13, 2023)
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/let-korean-national-enrol-as-advocate-hc-directs-bci/articleshow/100634082.cms?utm_
- https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/delhi-high-court/south-korean-national-enrolment-advocate-bar-council-of-india-v-deayoung-jung-1571756?utm_
More Current Affairs: https://learnproacademy.in/updates/