Today, On 16th December, The Bar Council of India (BCI) informed the Supreme Court that practicing advocates cannot engage in full-time journalism, emphasizing the need to preserve the integrity of the legal profession. Citing Rule 49 of the Bar Council Rules, the BCI highlighted that dual professions could lead to conflicts of interest and compromise ethical standards. It maintained that advocates must dedicate themselves fully to legal practice to uphold public trust and the profession’s sanctity.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court deliberating on whether advocates can simultaneously work as journalists. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Manmohan, evaluated the arguments presented.
Counsel for the Bar Council of India (BCI) argues that it is impractical for someone to practice law while being an accredited journalist, supporting their position with an affidavit that references Rule 49 of the BCI Rules of Conduct.
Justice Oka asked the petitioner,
“Are you in agreement with this, or should we move forward with a ruling on this matter?”
The petitioner’s counsel replied,
“I am not handling this; I am solely focused on my practice.”
The Bar Council of India has taken a firm position, stating that it is not acceptable for an advocate to engage in full-time journalism.
The counsel for the Bar Council of India (BCI) stated to the bench,
“They cannot practice law while also being an accredited journalist.” The petitioner’s counsel responded by affirming that he would not engage in journalism, whether full-time or part-time, and was solely focused on practicing law.
The bench noted in its order,
“The Bar Council of India has taken a position that it is not permissible for an advocate to pursue full-time journalism.”
Additionally, the bench recorded the petitioner’s voluntary commitment to abstain from journalism in any capacity.
This stance is rooted in the principle that legal professionals should fully commit to their legal practice to preserve the integrity of the profession. In light of this, the petitioner has submitted an affidavit pledging to avoid any involvement in journalism, whether full-time or part-time, and has confirmed that his primary focus will be on his advocacy work.
Additionally, the petitioner’s counsel, in the presence of the petitioner, has acknowledged the legitimacy of the Bar Council’s position. Consequently, the dispute has been effectively settled, eliminating the need for further involvement from the Bar Council in this case.
The issue is now resolved, allowing attention to return to the professional ethics and standards promoted by the Bar Council of India.
The case scheduled for a merit-based hearing on February 3rd.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) recently affirmed before the Supreme Court that advocates in practice are not allowed to take up full-time journalism. This clarification made during discussions regarding the ethical and professional responsibilities of advocates as outlined in the Advocates Act of 1961 and the Bar Council Rules.
The concern arises from Rule 49, which clearly prohibits advocates from pursuing any other profession or job while engaged in legal practice. The BCI maintained that full-time journalism is a separate profession that conflicts with the responsibilities and ethical standards required in legal practice. This case highlights the importance of advocates committing exclusively to the legal profession to prevent conflicts of interest, uphold professional integrity, and sustain public trust in the legal system.
The question of whether a practicing advocate can work as a journalist is a nuanced issue in India, primarily governed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules under the Advocates Act, 1961. These rules impose certain restrictions on the conduct of advocates to maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
Key Provisions of Bar Council Rules
- Prohibition of Dual Employment: As per Rule 49 of the BCI Rules, a full-time practicing advocate cannot engage in any other profession or employment. This aims to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure the advocate’s dedication to their legal duties.
- Exceptions: The rule permits certain roles, such as being a law teacher (up to three hours per day), engaging in literary or academic work, or being a part-time government servant with BCI approval.
While a practicing advocate can contribute to journalism in a limited, non-professional capacity, engaging in full-time journalism alongside legal practice is likely to breach Bar Council rules. Advocates must exercise caution and, if necessary, seek clarification or permission from the Bar Council to avoid professional misconduct.
Case Title
Mohd. Kamran v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr