In a significant declaration to the Supreme Court, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has stated that practising advocates cannot engage in full-time journalism. This ruling arises from the stipulations of Rule 49 under the BCI’s Rules of Conduct, which strictly regulates the professional activities of lawyers.
The issue was brought into focus by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, who sought clarification from the BCI regarding the professional boundaries for lawyers. The query was prompted by a petition from an advocate who also worked as a freelance journalist and was seeking to have a defamation case against him dismissed.
During the proceedings, the BCI’s counsel asserted to the bench that advocates are prohibited from holding dual roles as lawyers and accredited journalists. In response, the counsel representing the petitioner assured that his client would cease all journalistic activities, whether full-time or part-time, to focus solely on his legal practice.
“The Bar Council of India has clarified that full-time journalism is not a permissible activity for advocates,” noted the bench in their order, also acknowledging the petitioner’s commitment to withdraw completely from journalism.
The case has been scheduled for a follow-up in February 2025, when the court will assess the merits of the defamation case in question. This development highlights the BCI’s firm stance on maintaining the focused professional dedication of lawyers, underscoring the inherent conflicts between the roles of media professionals and legal practitioners.
