The Supreme Court Today (Oct 21) reiterated that a practicing advocate cannot work as a journalist on the side, since there are Bar Council of India (BCI) rules proscribing such dual roles for lawyers. A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih made the observation in a case where it had earlier noticed that the litigant claimed to be both a lawyer and a journalist.
New Delhi: In a recent hearing, the Supreme Court raised concerns over the dual roles of Advocate Mohd. Kamran, who is simultaneously practicing law and working as a freelance journalist. Kamran had filed a defamation case against former BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, but the issue of his dual professional identities became a focal point of the proceedings.
The Bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masiah, expressed reservations regarding Kamran’s professional conduct, emphasizing the ethical dilemma of holding both positions at the same time. Justice Oka questioned how a lawyer could ethically serve as a journalist, citing potential conflicts of interest.
“How can a member of the Bar say that I am working as a freelance journalist as well as a member of the Bar? This is highly unprofessional,”
Justice Oka remarked during the hearing. He further instructed Kamran’s counsel to seek instructions from the petitioner, stating that Kamran must clarify whether he wishes to continue as a lawyer or a journalist.
The Court raised the issue to the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, referring to an earlier order dated July 29, 2024. This order had directed the Registry to issue fresh notices to both councils, requiring them to look into Kamran’s conduct. The matter is now set to be heard on November 29, 2024.
Justice Oka’s remarks highlighted a critical ethical concern:
“How can a member of the Bar claim to be both a freelance journalist and an Advocate? He has to make a statement; either he has to be an Advocate or a freelance journalist. He can’t have it both ways.”
This statement underscored the Court’s unease with Kamran’s professional conduct, pushing for clarity on his professional standing.
The Court emphasized that if Kamran chooses one profession, the issue regarding the Bar Council’s inquiry into his conduct would not arise. “If you are able to make that statement, the issue of the Bar Council to deal with your conduct will not arise,” the Bench stated.
It is worth noting that in its previous order on July 29, 2024, the Supreme Court had already highlighted Kamran’s dual role in its observations. The Court noted,
“At various places, the petitioner claims that he is a practicing Advocate and a Freelance State Accredited Journalist. This conduct needs to be looked into by the Bar Council of State of Uttar Pradesh as well as the Bar Council of India.”
The Court had directed the Bar Councils to consider whether the rules of professional ethics allow such dual roles. “The Bar Councils will have to consider whether the rules of professional ethics permit this,” the Court stated, instructing the Registry to forward Kamran’s complaint and the order to the Bar Councils for necessary action.
The key issue revolves around whether Kamran’s dual roles violate the professional ethics mandated by the Bar Council of India. The concern is that a practicing lawyer, who is bound by confidentiality and other ethical obligations, may face a conflict of interest if he also operates as a journalist, reporting on matters of public interest.
The Supreme Court’s insistence on a clear distinction between these two roles reflects its commitment to upholding the integrity of the legal profession. In this case, Kamran will have to decide whether to continue practicing law or pursue journalism, as the Court has made it clear that holding both positions simultaneously is inappropriate.
As the case progresses, the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh are expected to provide clarity on Kamran’s professional standing. The Court has set the next hearing for November 29, 2024, when the matter will be revisited in light of Kamran’s decision and the response from the Bar Councils.
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining professional integrity and adhering to ethical guidelines, especially for individuals practicing in fields like law and journalism, where conflicts of interest can undermine public trust.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE