Delhi High Court directs BCI not to decide on show cause notice against Dentons Link Legal

The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) not to decide on its show cause notice against Dentons Link Legal over alleged violation of regulations pertaining to entry of foreign law firms. [Atul Sharma v. Bar Council of India].The Court expressed concern over BCI's decision to issue a press release while the matter was still at the show cause stage. It observed that such a step was inappropriate and directed the BCI to revisit the release..A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela also pulled up the BCI for issuing a press release naming the firm prior to adjudicating its show cause notice. It ordered,"Issue notice to the respondents. List this matter on Thursday to enable the counsels for respondents to seek instructions as to how the press release has been issues specifically naming the petition/firm. Prima facie we find that such a press release could not have been issued keeping in fact that a show cause notice has been issued in respect of the same issue. In the aforesaid view, we require the Bar Council of India to revisit the press release. The petitioners may submit a reply and the proceedings may go on, however a final decision cannot be taken till the next date of hearing." .Dentons Link Legal mounted a two-fold challenge: first, to the notice issued by the BCI directing disclosures on its collaboration with Dentons; and second, to the validity of the BCI regulations governing the entry of foreign law firms into India..Ultra vires and lack of authority.The firm argued that the Advocates Act, 1961 does not empower the BCI to frame such regulations. Reference was made to Section 49(1)(c) and (e), which require the prior approval of the Chief Justice of India before the Council can frame rules of this nature. In the absence of such approval, the regulations are ultra vires the parent statute, it was argued..No definition of "Indian law firm".It was contended that the regulations deal exclusively with foreign lawyers and foreign law firms, but make no attempt to define what constitutes an “Indian law firm.” By imposing obligations on Indian firms collaborating with foreign entities, the BCI has exceeded its remit, it was argued. Dentons Link Legal, as an Indian-registered and wholly Indian-owned firm, cannot be compelled to comply with provisions meant for foreign law firms, the counsel submitted..Retrospective effect.Another objection raised was that the regulations are being applied retrospectively, to arrangements entered into before their amendment in 2025. Such retrospective application, the firm submitted, is impermissible in law..Nature of arrangement.The firm stressed that its tie-up with Dentons is not an integrated practice. Therefore, it does not fall afoul of any restriction on the practice of law in India..Defects in notice and press release.On procedural grounds, Dentons Link Legal submitted that the show cause notice (SCN) itself is incomplete and amounts to an adjudicatory order. Yet, the BCI followed it with a public press release without disclosing the material it relied upon, thereby prejudicing the firm..BCI contended that the press release is its function as a regulator. The Court, however, said, "Giving a press release would amount to pre- determining the issue. You are only a regulator. How can you issue a press release before adjudicating the show cause notice? Show us the provision that gives you the authority to put the names here and give a press release."CJ Upadhyaya noted that the press release amounts to declaration of these two firms violating the BCI regulation. He said "Without determining the issue or adjudicating it, you are recording findings?"The Court thus asked BCI's lawyer to take instructions on whether they want to withdraw the press release, given these shortfalls. .Dentons Link Legal was represented by Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Arvind Nigam..On August 5, 2025, the BCI issued a press release cautioning against unauthorised collaborations between Indian and foreign law firms. The Council specifically flagged the combinations of CMS IndusLaw and Dentons Link Legal, warning that such arrangements, if not registered, would violate the Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2023, as amended in 2025.The BCI highlighted that many of these tie-ups are structured through Swiss Vereins, strategic alliances, exclusive referral models, or joint branding initiatives, which are then projected to the public under combined names such as “Dentons Link Legal” and “CMS IndusLaw.” According to the Council, these arrangements effectively portray an integrated legal practice within India, something impermissible without prior registration under the amended Rules.Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in AK Balaji, the BCI reiterated that foreign law firms cannot indirectly achieve what they are prohibited from doing directly. It stressed that any unified branding, joint platforms, or co-branded services offered without registration would be considered a contravention of the regulatory framework.The Council also revealed that it is issuing notices to such firms, requiring them to submit explanations regarding their structure and governance. Failure to comply could attract professional misconduct proceedings and penalties, it warned..The warning comes against the backdrop of recent alliances between Indian and global law firms. Shortly after the BCI amended its Rules in May 2025, CMS announced its tie-up with IndusLaw, with IndusLaw co-founder Gaurav Dani confirming to Bar & Bench that the arrangement meant “all CMS work will go to IndusLaw.” This followed the earlier Dentons–Link Legal collaboration announced in 2023..CMS IndusLaw and Dentons Link Legal rejected the BCI notice alleging impermissible collaborations with foreign firms. CMS IndusLaw said it was “dismayed and surprised,” stressing it is an independent Indian firm fully compliant with rules and that the BCI’s stance is based on “misconception and surmises.” Dentons Link Legal leaders Atul Sharma, Nusrat Hassan and Anand Srivastava stated their firm is wholly Indian-owned, managed by advocates and compliant with the Advocates Act.