A significant debate has emerged on social media concerning the eligibility of Indian MPs to practice law in court. This discussion was sparked after the Supreme Court began hearing petitions against the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, with prominent lawyer and MP Kapil Sibal representing the petitioners.
Many have argued that Sibal’s position as an MP disqualifies him from practising law against a government-enacted law.
The central question revolves around the Indian Advocates Act, 1961, which regulates the legal profession in India. This Act outlines the registration, conduct, and ethics for lawyers, and defines the role of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils. However, it does not explicitly prohibit MPs from practising law.
Under the Act, lawyers must be registered with a State Bar Council and adhere to the BCI’s ethical standards. Lawyers employed full-time by the government or in other salaried positions are barred from practising law.
However, the Supreme Court clarified in the 2018 case of Ashwini Upadhyay vs Union of India that MPs and MLAs are not considered full-time government employees or salaried workers, allowing them to practice law.
Certain circumstances can disqualify a lawyer from practising, such as conflicts of interest, unethical conduct, suspended licenses, or holding specific government positions like Advocate General or Public Prosecutor.
MPs, however, do not fall under these restrictions unless they hold additional government positions that entail full-time obligations.
In summary, the Indian Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules do not prevent MPs from practising law, even against government laws, unless there is a direct conflict of interest or ethical concerns.
Kapil Sibal, therefore, retains his eligibility to represent clients in court despite his status as an MP, although his actions may be subject to scrutiny on ethical grounds.
(Courtesy: News18)
