What to Read in The Hindu Editorial( Topic and Syllabus wise)

Editorial 1: India’s legal bridge is one of reciprocity, not roadblock

Context

The criticism directed at the Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India is unjustified and lacks merit.

Introduction

In May this year, the Bar Council of India (BCI) brought in new rules called the Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India. While many people in the legal field praised these rules, some U.S.-based law firms strongly opposed them. They described the rules as a “non-trade barrier” and claimed it was a deliberate attempt to keep U.S. law firms out of the Indian legal system.

• However, such criticismshows a poor understanding of the legal powers and responsibilities of the Bar Council of India (BCI).
• It also reflects a lack of awarenessabout India’s strong regulatory system that oversees its legal sector.
• In fact, the new rulesaim to create a balanced approach — allowing foreign lawyers and firms to operate in India.
• At the same time, they ensure that professional standardsare maintained and the interests of Indian legal stakeholders are protected.

The criticism

Point	Objection Raised	Issues
1. Non-tariff barrier	The rules impose procedural restrictions on U.S.-based law firms, which is seen as a move to ‘freeze out’ their entry into India’s legal market.	Non-tariff trade barrier, procedural restrictions, U.S. law firms, Indian legal landscape
2. Lack of consultation	The U.S. claims that its interests were ignored during global consultations held before drafting the rules.	U.S. interests, global consultations, compliance issues
3. Confidentiality conflict	The rule requiring disclosure of ‘nature of legal work’ and ‘client identity’ is said to violate ABA confidentiality norms.	Client confidentiality, ABA Model Rules, disclosure requirement
4. Reciprocity issues	The fly-in, fly-out provisions are considered unfair because they impose duration- and disclosure-based restrictions not applied to Indian firms in the U.S.	Fly-in, fly-out, reciprocity, unfair restrictions
5. No transition period	The rules were introduced without warning, giving no time for adjustment, which disadvantages U.S. professionals.	Surprise move, transition period, U.S. firms disadvantaged
6. Trade impact	The rules might harm U.S.-India legal and trade relations, as Indian businesses may avoid U.S. law-related transactions due to a lack of qualified U.S. law professionals in India.	Bilateral trade, legal engagement, U.S. law expertise, Indian corporations

Regulatory and Constitutional Framework

• Bar Council of India (BCI):
  • Nature: Statutory body (not a trade body)
  • Function: Maintains professional conduct standards and protects the interests of legal professionals in India
• Legal Practice and Trade Agreements:
  • Governed under Entries 77 & 78of the Union List (Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India)
  • Cannot be included in trade agreements, unlike entries related to trade and commerce

Judicial Interpretation

Case	Issue	Holding
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through Its President Jasbir Singh Malik vs D.K. Gandhi (2024)	Whether legal practice is a commercial activity	Held as a contract of personal service, thus not part of trade/business practices

International Context

• India–UK Free Trade Agreement:
  • Decision: India excluded legal services from the FTA
  • Reason: Upholds India’s consistent stancethat legal services require a distinct regulatory regime, despite external pressure

Foreign Legal Practice in India: BCI Rules

Aspect	Provision / Rule	Details
Entry of Foreign Law Firms	Rules 3 & 4	Permitted with registration, ethical compliance, and professional conditions
Temporary Visits	Proviso to Rule 3(1)	Fly-in, fly-out model: Stay not exceeding 60 days in 12 months
Reciprocity	General Principle	U.S. lawyers face equivalent regulation; reflects mutual compliance
Good Standing Certificate	Rule 4(h)	Criticized by U.S. due to its decentralized bar regulation system
Flexibility in Verification	Rule 6, Chapter III	BCI can holistically verify credentials on a case-by-case basis

Confidentiality and Disclosures

• Disclosure Requirement:
  • Pertains to the nature and scope of legal work
  • Ensures compliance with permissible practice boundaries
  • Does not compromise client confidentiality

Issue	India’s Stand / BCI Position
Legal profession as trade	Not recognized as trade; has unique constitutional grounding
Trade pacts	Legal services excluded from trade agreements
Foreign participation	Allowed under structured, ethical, and reciprocal conditions
Client confidentiality	Maintained, even with disclosure norms

Conclusion

The criticism regarding the lack of consultations or absence of a transition period before the implementation of the rules is unfounded. For over two decades, there have been extensive debates and discussions, supported by expert committee reports, international consultations, and significant judicial pronouncements such as Lawyers Collective vs Bar Council of India (2009) and Bar Council of India vs A.K. Balaji (2018). These developments have collectively laid the foundation for the current regulatory framework. Rather than serving as a hurdle, the rules are designed to function as a cooperative bridge, facilitating the liberalisation of the Indian legal sector in a measured and structured manner. At the same time, they ensure the protection of professional integrity, client confidentiality, and uphold the essential principles of reciprocity and ethical accountability.

 

Editorial 2: The hazards of going global on India-Pakistan issues

Context

Several controversial ideas in the United Nations can weaken India’s efforts to fight terrorism that is being supported from across its borders.

Introduction

Operation Sindoor and later events show the failure of diplomacy—both bilateral and multilateral—in solving India-Pakistan issues. A tangle of outdated ideas, shaped by the Cold War and post-WWII politics, blocks progress. Even sincere efforts are limited by old UN resolutions and global policies. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s rigid stance that Kashmir is the core issue lets it hide behind terms like terrorism, self-determination, and peaceful settlement, used for over 70 years.

Challenges in Gaining International Support on the Jammu & Kashmir Issue

• After Operation Sindoor, India sent out seven teams of special envoysto different countries.
• These envoys were told to strongly assert that Jammu and Kashmir (J&K)is an integral part of India.
• However, most countries—especially those not closely following the issue—refer to UN maps and documents.
• These maps often carry an inscriptionabout the India-Pakistan border in the J&K region.
• The UN map states: “Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties.“
• Some maps also carry a general disclaimer, saying: “The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.“
• Due to such disclaimers, most countries avoid taking a clear standon the border issue.
• At most, they suggest that a bilateral solution, as stated in the Simla Agreement, would be the best path forward.

India’s stand on terror

Parameter	Details
India’s Early Initiative	Over 30 years ago, India proposed a Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism at the UN General Assembly.
Global Response	The initiative was dismissed as an anti-Pakistan move and failed to gain broader international support.
UN Mechanism at the Time	A one-man anti-terrorism unit in Vienna existed, but it was largely symbolic — focused on research, without a formal definition of terrorism.
Problem of Definition	Terrorism remained undefined due to the often-quoted dilemma: “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
Criticism of India	India’s past support for freedom struggles in Africa and Sri Lanka was cited to argue how contentious and politically charged defining terrorism can be.
UN’s Compromise	As a result, the UN deliberately kept the definition of terrorism vague, avoiding firm commitments.
Impact of 9/11 Attacks (2001)	The 9/11 attacks brought global attention to terrorism, especially in the U.S. and Europe, previously seen as distant from the threat.
Initial Global Mobilisation	There was an initial surge of activity in the UN’s political and legal bodies to establish binding legal frameworks against terrorism.
Shift in Focus	However, momentum shifted towards U.S.-led military action in Afghanistan, targeting the Taliban regime.
Outcome of Afghanistan War	Though aimed at eradicating terrorism, the long war ended with the U.S. withdrawal, resulting in the Taliban’s return to power.

The UN’s approach

• UNSC Framework on Terrorism
  • The UN Security Council (UNSC)has established several mechanisms to combat international terrorism, primarily through resolutions.
  • These resolutions mandate member statesto implement economic and security measures to prevent terrorist activities.
  • The Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC)of the UNSC oversees the implementation of these obligations.
• Legal Basis for Counter-Terrorist Action
  • Article 51of the UN Charter permits the right to self-defence if a member-state suffers an armed attack.
  • Though complex in the context of terrorism, this article can justify actionsagainst terrorist groups responsible for attacks.
  • India’s surgical strikeson terror camps will be evaluated on:
    • Proportionality
    • Compliance with international humanitarian law
  • UNSC’s Holistic Approach
    • The UNSC advocates a “whole-of-society” approachto counter-terrorism.
    • This includes:
      • Respect for human rightsand rule of law
      • Promotion of international cooperation
      • Addressing the root causesof terrorism
      • Preventing and countering violent extremism
    • Challenges to India’s Position
      • Despite raising issues of terrorism at the UNSC, India faces difficulty in obtaining clear international supportfor its doctrine.
      • The Counter-Terrorism Committeehas not endorsed the idea that terrorist attacks equate to acts of war— a view promoted by India.
    • Strategic Restraint and Diplomatic Context
      • India’s restraint along the Line of Control (LoC)and its adherence to the ceasefire agreement, even during crises, impact international perceptions.
      • These actions are significant in UNSC deliberationsand bilateral discussions, including with friendly nations, where India’s strategic choices are often scrutinised.

The issue of hyphenation

• UN Intervention:When India initially brought Pakistan’s invasion of Kashmir to the UN, it should have been addressed as an act of aggression under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
• Misclassification:Instead, the issue was categorized under Article VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes), which allowed for the inclusion of unrelated matters and led to Western countries consistently linking India and Pakistan on various issues.
• Nuclear Hotspot:The acquisition of nuclear weapons by both India and Pakistan has led to Kashmir being labeled a nuclear hotspot.
• Doctrinal Contrast:India maintains a “no-first-use” nuclear doctrine, while Pakistan has threatened to escalate its conventional military capabilities.
• Bilateral Focus:India’s consistent stance is that any bilateral discussions with Pakistan should be limited to terrorism and the status of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK).
• Diplomatic Futility:Given this, both bilateral and multilateral diplomatic efforts are unlikely to be effective.
• Avoid External Support:While Pakistan will likely continue to internationalize the Kashmir issue, India should avoid seeking international intervention or support.
• Historical Precedent:Past experiences, particularly the history of the “India-Pakistan question” in the Security Council, suggest that such international efforts are futile.

Conclusion

India has nothing to gain by raising its concerns at the international level because its viewpoint has become trapped in several controversial ideas at the United Nations. India’s only option is to ensure its security through suitable military action, as long as Pakistan continues its strategy of causing repeated attacks to try and capture Indian territory.