During the London International Disputes Week 2026, significant discourse emerged regarding India’s hesitance to liberalize its legal market amidst its overarching economic ambitions. Sapan Gupta, Group General Counsel at ArcelorMittal, expressed concerns about India’s reluctance to allow foreign legal practitioners, contrasting it with the country’s openness in other sectors such as defense and nuclear industries.
Gupta highlighted the inconsistency within India’s policy framework, stating, “While we have opened every other sector with certain restrictions, the legal market remains closed. This does not align with the nation’s aspirations and economic performance.” He pointed out that the issue extends beyond regulatory delays, emphasizing a lack of clarity on India’s intentions to liberalize the legal market.
These sentiments resonate with broader concerns among legal and business communities that India’s regulatory structure is not advancing in tandem with its economic goals. Despite new regulations from the Bar Council of India (BCI), the legal market remains practically inaccessible to foreign entities. This viewpoint was shared during a session hosted by the General Counsels’ Association of India entitled “Dispute Resolution 2.0: Arbitration, Mediation & Technology in a Digital Economy,” part of the “Two Nations, One Legal Future: India–UK Partnership 2026” conference in London.
Mahesh Agarwal, Managing Partner at Agarwal Law Associates, discussed the legislative barriers that restrict foreign legal participation in India. “While we wish to have foreign lawyers for international law or foreign clients, legislative changes are essential. As things stand, foreign lawyers are effectively barred from practicing in India,” Agarwal stated. He noted that although the rules permit limited non-litigation work, the scope remains narrowly defined, restricting foreign lawyers from advising on Indian law or to Indian clients.
Further insights came from Gourab Banerji, President of the Arbitration Bar of India (ABI) and Senior Advocate, who criticized the 2025 regulatory framework for its lack of clarity and internal contradictions. “The 2025 rules are as clear as mud,” Banerji remarked, pointing to the numerous unclear clarifications issued under unusual circumstances.
More Read
Banerji also raised concerns about the absence of explicit provisions for international arbitration, an area India aims to develop as a global leader. He noted the paradox in allowing foreign lawyers to engage in arbitration without the ability to advise on Indian law, which poses challenges in arbitration proceedings.
The panel, moderated by Shivani Sanghi of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner and Sherina Petit of Stewarts Law, was part of a broader dialogue on strengthening the India–UK legal partnership. The discussions underscored the necessity for modern, globally coherent legal frameworks to facilitate cross-border trade, investment, and dispute resolution.
