The Karnataka High Court directed a law college to remove promotional banners featuring a person in an advocate’s gown, holding that the BCI Rules prohibit such advertising, and granted the institution eight weeks to replace the banners to uphold the legal profession’s dignity.
The Karnataka High Court directed an educational trust running a law college to take down promotional buntings and flex banners depicting a person dressed in an advocate’s robes, observing that the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules do not countenance advertising built around an individual.
Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad passed the order while hearing a petition by the Bharathi Education Society Trust, which had challenged a communication issued by the Panchayat Development Officer requiring the removal of the buntings and cautioning that action would follow if they remained in place.
Examining the photographs of the buntings placed on record, the Court noted that they carried the image of a person in what appeared to be the attire prescribed for advocates. It went on to record that the BCI Rules would stand against any advertisement of an individual a finding that effectively vindicated the local authority’s objection.
The Court thus took the view that the panchayat authority was justified in flagging the material as being in conflict with the professional-conduct framework governing the Bar.
The Court remarked,
“The photographs of the buntings are produced in the Annexure -C series, and it is seen that these buntings have the image of a person in what could be the attire prescribed for Advocates. The Bar Council of India Rules would be against any advertisement of an individual,”
Counsel for the trust told the Court that the objectionable portions of the buntings could be removed if some time were granted for the purpose. Accepting that submission, the Court allowed the trust eight weeks to carry out the exercise, and directed the Panchayat Development Officer to hold coercive action in abeyance for that period, thereafter deciding whether any further step was warranted.
Significantly, the Court did not shut out the institution’s ability to publicise itself altogether. It gave the trust liberty to substitute the images of persons in advocate’s robes with material about the institution and the law degree course it offers.
In the Court’s formulation, if the trust replaces the image of a person in advocate’s attire, in deference to the BCI Rules against advertisement for individuals, and ensures that the buntings relate to the law degree course and the particulars of the institution, then the panchayat authority “cannot be precipitous in bringing about a termination of the petitioner’s right.”
The distinction drawn is a practical one: an educational institution may advertise its courses and its own credentials, but it may not build that publicity around the depiction of an individual in the professional attire of an advocate.
The order draws on a long-standing feature of professional regulation in India. Under the Bar Council of India Rules framed under the Advocates Act, 1961 in particular Rule 36 of the standards of professional conduct and etiquette an advocate is barred from soliciting work or advertising, whether directly or indirectly, including through circulars, personal communications, interviews not warranted by personal relations, or by furnishing or inspiring newspaper comment.
The rationale traditionally offered is that legal practice is a profession rather than a trade, and that advertising risks distorting a client’s choice of counsel.
That prohibition has been relaxed only to a limited extent. Following an amendment in 2008, advocates and firms are permitted to furnish certain prescribed particulars such as name, address, telephone number, enrolment details, qualifications and areas of practice on their websites, subject to a declaration of accuracy and to the framework approved by the Bar Council.
The present case sits at the intersection of that regime and the advertising of legal education, an area where institutions frequently deploy the visual iconography of the profession gowns, bands, courtroom imagery to market their courses.
The High Court’s order suggests that where such imagery centres on the depiction of an individual advocate, it may fall foul of the rules against individual advertisement, even when the advertiser is an institution rather than a practitioner.
Case Title: Bharathi Education Society Trust v. State of Karnataka