The Madras High Court has reserved its judgment on the writ petition filed against the entry of foreign law firms. The final arguments stretched into the post-lunch session with some of the country's leading counsels putting forth their arguments. 

Senior Counsel Abhishesk Manu Singhvi, briefed by Senthil Ramamoorthy of Dua  Associates, and representing the American law firms argued that the requirement to be enrolled only applies to those wanting to practice in India and that such "practice" must be of Indian law alone. Singhvi opined that if the "practice" were to include foreign law, then it would lead to the absurd conclusion where only Indian law firms could advise clients on laws which they might not necessarily be familiar with.

Echoing this school of thought, the foreign law firms have stated that they do not come to India to practice Indian law; rather they merely advise Indian and foreign clients on foreign law or in arbitration matters based on foreign law. The Respondent law firms also raised, inter alia, three preliminary objections with regard to territorial jurisdiction, locus standi and policy decision.

Senior Counsel  A. R. Sundereshan, representing the Petitioner, argued that the Advocates Act does not make any distinction between those practicing Indian and foreign law. He further contended that the High Court does have territorial jurisdiction since foreign law firms do come to Tamil Nadu and advise clients in Tamil Nadu. Furthermore, the Petitioner also has locus since he is enrolled in Tamil Nadu and practices in the State. Lastly, the Senior Counsel argued that this is not a policy decision but merely a plea for the implementation of an existing policy.

With the arguments concluded, the Court has reserved its judgment. Both foreign and Indian law firms must now wait and watch.