Advocate Cannot Do Full-Time Journalism : Bar Council Of India Tells Supreme Court

The Bar Council of India informed the Supreme Court that a practicing advocate cannot work simultaneously as a full-time journalist. This is due to the bar under Rule 49 of the BCI Rules of Conduct, which provides an advocate must not engage in full-time salaried employment while practicing law.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Manmohan was told by Advocate Radhika Gautam appearing for BCI that an advocate cannot simultaneously be an accredited journalist.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih had earlier sought the stand of the BCI on whether an advocate can be a full-time journalist. Thereafter, the Court said that it will decide whether advocates can simultaneously work as journalists.

The bench considered the issue while hearing a petition filed by an advocate, who was working as a freelance journalist, challenging the quashing of a defamation case filed by him against former BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. 

Today, the Advocate Radhika Gautam for BCI informed the bench, "They cannot practice law and simultaneously also be an accredited journalist." The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he wouldn't work as a journalist, whether full-time or part-time and was only practicing law. 

"The Bar Council of India of India has taken a stand that it is not permissible for an advocate to do full-time journalism," the bench recorded in the order. The bench also recorded the voluntary undertaking of the petitioner that he would refrain from the field of journalism, whether full-time or part-time.

The affidavit filed by BCI stated that accredited journalism, requiring a minimum of 15 years of full-time journalistic experience for accreditation, constitutes full-time employment, which contravenes Rule 49.

"The natural corollary of the aforesaid eligibility for being an Accredited Journalist is that such a journalist would continue to work full time. Furthermore, this in most cases, involves full-time employment with media organizations, often under contractual or salaried arrangements. This kind of employment directly contravenes Rule 49, making it incompatible with legal practice", the affidavit reads.

The BCI also addressed part-time journalism, arguing that even part-time engagement in journalism, whether salaried or not, could conflict with professional obligations as an advocate.

"Even part-time journalism, even if not involving a salary/employment contract, is concerned, it is the humble submission of BCI that the said professional activity will also be an embargo on the practice of law as an Advocate under the Advocates Act", the affidavit states.

It further adds, "Advocates engaging in part-time journalism must ensure that their activities do not conflict with their legal practice or create perceptions of bias. They must avoid reporting on cases they are involved in or using their journalistic platform to promote their legal services."

It contended that Rule 51 of the BCI Rules permits advocates to engage in journalism only if it aligns with the dignity and responsibilities of the legal profession and does not constitute full-time professional activity.

"Though the Rule appears to provide an exemption permitting 'journalism,' the term must be construed ejusdem generis with the other activities contemplated therein, as well as in light of the Rule's underlying intent and objectives. The permissible activities described such as reviewing parliamentary bills, editing textbooks, setting examination papers, and engaging in broadcast or academic discourse are fundamentally ancillary and are not intended to sanction the simultaneous pursuit of two full-time professions."

The affidavit cited Rule 37 and outlined several concerns, including potential conflicts of interest, breaches of confidentiality, and ethical dilemmas, if advocates were to engage in journalism.

"An advocate acting as a journalist could exploit their legal expertise or access to privileged information for journalistic gain, potentially swaying public opinion or sensationalizing legal matters. Similarly, a journalist practicing law might leverage their media influence to benefit their legal practice, creating ethical concerns."

It added, "Confidentiality obligations under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act further complicate the matter. Advocates are required to protect privileged communication with their clients. Journalistic activities, particularly investigative reporting, could inadvertently breach these obligations."

It emphasized that both professions demand undivided commitment and focus, making dual practice incompatible.

"An accredited journalist practicing as an advocate faces significant legal, ethical, and practical challenges. Full time journalism is clearly impermissible, while part time journalism might be allowed only under strict conditions. Advocates must prioritize their legal responsibilities, avoid conflicts of interest, and uphold the integrity of the legal profession. Any misuse of influence, whether as a journalist or an advocate, undermines public confidence and violates core principles of fairness and impartiality", the affidavit concludes.

Taking the affidavit on record, the Court posted the matter to February 2025 for the determination of the merits (regarding the defamation case). The bench clarified that the presence of BCI is no longer required as the controversy is over now.

Case no. – SLP(Crl.) No. 9615/2024

Case Title – Mohd. Kamran v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.

Click Here To Read/Download Order