By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
The Bar Council of India (BCI) recently informed the Supreme Court that practising advocates cannot simultaneously work as journalists, whether on a full-time or part-time basis. A bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Manmohan, said: “We have heard the learned counsel for BCI which has submitted that as per the rules laid down, an advocate cannot be allowed to pursue part-time or full-time journalism. The petitioner has filed an affidavit of undertaking stating that he is no longer working as a journalist and will only practice as an advocate…” The submissions were made relying upon Rule 49 of the BCI Rules that prohibits advocates from practicing any other full-time profession while being enrolled on the rolls as an advocate.
The recent decision came after a case was filed by Mohd Kamran, who, reportedly, identified as both a lawyer and a freelance journalist. Subsequently, however, Kamran, filed an affidavit of undertaking, saying he no longer worked as a journalist and only practised law. The BCI filed an affidavit clarifying that while full-time journalism was categorically impermissible for advocates, even part-time journalistic activities were generally not allowed unless strictly connected to the legal profession. The BCI further said in its affidavit that part-time journalism too could only encompass scholarly articles, opinion pieces, or editorial contributions that maintained a “meaningful nexus” with the legal profession. “Even (when it comes to) part-time journalism… the said professional activity will also be an embargo on the practice of law as an advocate,” it said.
Any journalistic engagement by an advocate, the BCI said, must not conflict with his/her primary professional obligations, compromise the dignity and independence of the legal profession, or result in a dual-profession arrangement. While Rule 51 of the BCI Rules provide some leeway for advocates to engage in journalism, the BCI said such activities must be limited to contributions directly related to legal practice and understanding.
The issue came to the forefront with the filing of a plea challenging an Allahabad High Court order that quashed the criminal defamation proceedings against former parliamentarian Brij Bhushan Singh. The defamation case arose from certain letters written by Singh in September 2022 to the Uttar Pradesh chief minister and chief secretary, alleging that Kamran was a “conspirator and thief” in various criminal cases. The letters were also circulated on social media and in newspapers, which prompted Kamran to allege defamation and seek restoration of the proceedings against Singh who is also facing a separate trial over sexual harassment allegations made by six Indian female wrestlers. Clarifying that notice had already been issued in the matter regarding defamation and that the issue regarding the dual practice not being allowed had been clarified by the BCI and admitted by Kamran, the bench stated that “the presence of BCI is not required as the controversy is over now”.
“How can a member of the Bar say that I am working as a freelance journalist as well as the member of the Bar? He has to make a statement; either he has to be an advocate or he has to be a freelance journalist. He can’t have it both ways. You please take instructions,” the Court had said.
The Court further remarked that if Kamran chooses one profession, the issue of the BCI addressing 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 Court had said. “We have perused the complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by the petitioner. 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 Bar Councils will have to consider whether the rules of professional ethics permit this,” the Court directed.
The legal profession is considered to be a noble one. Advocates, in addition to being professionals, are also officers of the courts and play a vital role in the administration of justice. All advocates enrolled in India are governed by a set of rules that dictate their professional conduct as well as the duty that they owe the court, the clients, their opponents and other advocates. These rules on the professional standards that an advocate needs to maintain are mentioned in Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules and have been placed there under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Advocacy requires a lot of focus, intricate reading, and work done to meet client needs and get the court proceedings done. In order to protect and preserve the profession’s nobility, advocates are subjected to some restrictions one of which is that an advocate cannot take up any other employment such as running a business or being a journalist while serving as an advocate. These restrictions mandated by the BCI are enumerated from Rules 47 to 52 of the Bar Council of India Rules, framed under the Advocates Act, 1961. According to Rule 49, an advocate cannot be a full-time salaried employee of any government, person, firm, corporation or concern, during the reign of his practice. An intimation to the BCI is to be given if he wants to do so. An intimation, thus, will lead to the termination of his practice, as long as he continues such employment.
As per Rule 52, advocates are permitted to do the following things:
- Review Parliamentary Bills for remuneration,
- edit legal textbooks at a salary,
- do press-vetting for newspapers,
- coach pupils for legal examination,
- set and examine question papers; and
- become a law teacher (up to three hours per day), engage in literary or academic work, or be a part-time government servant with BCI approval.
Apart from these, an advocate can also accept any part-time employment after obtaining the consent of the state bar council. Such part-time employment must not conflict with professional work and must not be inconsistent with the dignity of the profession. 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 BCI rules.
The courts have always been very strict in ensuring that this rule regarding bar on practice of dual professions by currently enrolled advocates is not flouted. The same was, in fact, also reiterated by the Supreme Court in suo motu proceedings in the case concerning financial difficulties being faced by lawyers, who were at loss of work, amid the Covid-19 induced lockdown. The bench, comprising the then Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian had observed: “We are conscious of the fact that the advocates are bound by Rules which restrict their income only to the profession. They are not permitted to earn a livelihood by any other means.”
Rules 47 to 52 of Chapter VII of the Bar Council of India Rules impose restrictions on advocates from taking up other employment. These “Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette” have been upheld time and again by the Supreme Court as well as various High Courts. “Legal profession requires full-time attention and would not countenance an advocate riding two horses or more at a time. He has to be a full-time advocate or not at all,” the bench had added.
The latest case wherein the duality of professions is again under discussion is also of importance owing to the fact that the two professions concerned, namely advocacy and journalism are totally incompatible with each other! An advocate’s journalistic activities could very well breach his client’s confidentiality or even compromise his impartiality. This ruling given by the apex court in the current case accentuates the ethical concerns of lawyers practicing other professions, particularly journalism. A fundamental principle of the legal profession is the duty of confidentiality owed to clients, ensuring no breach of trust. The potential conflict is clear: a lawyer who is also a journalist might inadvertently reveal client information or appear biased.
The Supreme Court’s ruling aims to prevent such ethical dilemmas by prohibiting advocates from engaging in journalism while also underscoring the ethical boundaries within the legal profession, particularly in preventing conflicts of interest that might arise from an advocate engaging in another full-time profession. The ruling also reinforces the BCI’s stance on maintaining the dignity and professionalism of legal practice by limiting advocates’ involvement in other fields so that they may concentrate solely on their practice without being distracted with other issues that may deviate them from their sole purpose of being officers of the court.
—The author is an Advocate-on-Record practising in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi