Advocate Working As Freelance Journalist Is Professional Misconduct? Supreme Court Asks Bar Council To Examine
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 29) directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to look into the conduct of Advocate Mohd. Kamran, who has filed a defamation case against former BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. The court asked the Bar Councils to take necessary action on Kamran's working as a freelance journalist while simultaneously practising as...
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 29) directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to look into the conduct of Advocate Mohd. Kamran, who has filed a defamation case against former BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. The court asked the Bar Councils to take necessary action on Kamran's working as a freelance journalist while simultaneously practising as an advocate.
“We have perused the complaint filed by the petitioner. At various places the petitioner claims that while he is a practicing advocate, he is state accredited freelance journalist. This needs to be looked into by the Bar Council of State of Uttar Pradesh and Bar Council of India. Registry to forward a copy of complaint to the State Bar Council as well as BCI for taking necessary action along with a copy of this order”, the court said.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih also issued a notice returnable on September 9, 2024 in Kamran's plea challenging the dismissal of his defamation complaint by the Allahabad High Court.
Kamran in his complaint has alleged that Singh wrote defamatory letters about him to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
During the proceedings today, Justice Oka questioned Kamran's dual roles, pointing out the prohibition under BCI Rules on Etiquette.
“Are you not guilty of professional misconduct when you say that you are a lawyer as well as a journalist? Just see Chapter II, Standards Of Professional Conduct And Etiquette. Bar Council says there is complete prohibition on lawyer doing anything else…We will not tolerate such conduct”, Justice Oka said, highlighting that Kamran has mentioned repeatedly in his complaint that he is a state accredited freelance journalist.
Sections 47 – 49 of Chapter II of BCI Rules provide that an advocate cannot personally engage in any business, be the Managing Director or Secretary of a company, on enter into full-time salaried employment.
Citing section 51 of Chapter II BCI Rules, Kamran explained that he is not working in any media organisation or drawing salary and that he only writes articles. As per section 51, an advocate may engage in broadcasting, journalism, lecturing and teaching, subject to the rules against advertising and full-time employment.
Justice Oka remarked, “You are a lawyer, please take advice of some of the colleagues. What a patent blunder you have done. At least today you make a statement that you will give up one of the two.”
Background
Kamran's complaint alleged that Singh defamed him in letters addressed to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, stating that Kamran had various serious criminal cases registered against him and yet was recognized as an independent journalist by the Uttar Pradesh government.
The letters also stated that various newspapers have been registered by the complainant giving different addresses and also that while he was pursuing his LLB, he was acting as a full-fledged freelance journalist.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, issued a summoning order for Singh to face trial under Section 500 of the IPC.
The High Court observed that the letters were confidential communications between constitutional authorities and did not constitute defamation as they were not publicly disseminated by Singh.
The High Court said that the letters fell under the 8th Exception of Section 499 IPC, which protects accusations made in good faith to an authorized person.
Additionally, the High Court found that the trial court had not followed proper procedures under the amended Section 202 CrPC, which requires an investigation or inquiry before summoning an accused from another district.
The High Court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings against Singh would be an abuse of legal process, as there was no evidence suggesting that Singh had leaked the letters to the media. Consequently, the High Court quashed the defamation complaint against Singh. This order has been challenged in the Supreme Court in the present case.
Case no. – SLP(Crl.) No. 9615/2024
Case Title – Mohd. Kamran v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.