BCI Issues Directives Regarding Digital And Social Media Conduct Of Lawyers; Bans Interns From Making "Lawyer Life", "Day In Chamber" Reels

The Bar Council of India, through its recent regulatory directive, laid down strict guidelines governing the digital and social media conduct of legal practitioners to preserve the majesty of the courts and the purity of the justice delivery system.

The Council observed a growing and disturbing tendency where professional spaces, judicial attire, and live-streamed proceedings were being commercialized and sensationalized.

To curb these practices, the Council specified several categories of prohibited conduct that all advocates are advised and called upon to refrain from.

The Circular said, "All Advocates are advised and called upon to refrain from: i. making reels, videos, photographs or promotional content inside Court premises, courtrooms, corridors, Bar rooms, chambers or judicial buildings in a manner inconsistent with dignity and decorum; ii. using bands, gowns or robes for public display, reels, posts, promotional photographs or social media performance in a manner inconsistent with Rule 5 and Rule 7 of Section I, Chapter II, Part VI, which require prescribed dress in Court and prohibit wearing bands or gown in public places except on ceremonial occasions and at such places as the Bar Council of India or the Court may prescribe; iii. recording physical, virtual or hybrid Court proceedings, unless they are subject to applicable court rules, and in the absence of court rules, with written approval of the Court/ Registrar General, and are as per the guidelines of this circular;"

Advocates were directed to refrain from making reels, videos, photographs, or promotional content inside court premises, courtrooms, corridors, Bar rooms, chambers, or judicial buildings in a manner inconsistent with professional dignity and decorum.

The regulatory circular strictly prohibited the use of bands, gowns, or robes for public display, reels, posts, promotional photographs, or social media performance, noting that such acts violated the prescribed dress code which bars the wearing of gowns and bands in public places except on ceremonial occasions.

Furthermore, practitioners were forbidden from using court buildings, court names, court signage, briefs, cause lists, case files, client documents, or chamber settings as props for personal publicity, glamourised social media branding, or follower-seeking content.

It said, "Therefore, live-streaming of proceedings cannot be treated as a licence to clip, edit, sensationalise, monetise, mock, distort or circulate fragments of proceedings with disparaging captions, music, thumbnails, memes or commentary. Live-streaming exists for transparency and public education, not for scandalisation, ridicule or digital entertainment."

Furthermore, the digital space increasingly witnessed legal misinformation, fake judgments, and clickbait guarantees of legal outcomes disseminated by un-enrolled individuals and self-styled legal influencers.

"For removal of doubt, fake judgments, fabricated citations, manipulated cause lists, false claims of appearance, invented client success stories, impersonation of Advocates or Judges, and AI generated material passed off as real Court content may, depending upon facts, attract professional, civil, criminal, contempt, privacy or platform related consequences. At the same time, no person shall be treated as guilty merely because a complaint is received. Any adverse action by a Bar Council, Centre of Legal Education, chamber, law firm, Bar Association or other institution must follow a fair, proportionate and legally permissible process, including opportunity of explanation wherever required", it added.

Appreciating a prior cautionary circular issued by the Kerala High Court Advocates Association under the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India approved the present measures following the deliberations and report of a specialized Sub-Committee. This regulatory action was further reinforced by subsequent developments before the Supreme Court of India in Anil Pandey and Another v. The Bar Council of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 817 of 2026), wherein the Apex Court issued notice regarding the misuse of social media for direct or indirect advertising, solicitation of work, and commercial digital self-promotion by legal practitioners.

The Bar Council of India clarified that the legal profession in India is sui generis—a noble and learned profession integrally connected with the administration of justice, rather than a trade or avenue for personal publicity. Relying upon the landmark rulings in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi and Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji, the Council reiterated that the ethics of the legal profession apply with equal force to both litigation and non-litigation spheres, including chamber work and legal opinions, and that standards prevalent in foreign jurisdictions cannot be imported into India to bypass the statutory prohibition against advertisement.

Exercising its statutory powers under Section 7(1)(b), Section 7(1)(g), and Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Council ordered that the circular shall operate as an immediate professional direction. Any violation of these directives may invite disciplinary action under Section 35 of the Act, which includes suspension or removal from the State roll of advocates. The Council also reminded stakeholders that digital misconduct involving synthetic media, face-swapping, deepfakes, or voice-cloning may attract severe legal consequences under the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

To enforce ground-level compliance, the Council instituted a multi-layered implementation mechanism. Every candidate seeking enrolment with a State Bar Council shall execute a standalone sworn affidavit affirming their commitment to digital restraint and professional confidentiality. Similarly, Centres of Legal Education were directed to secure separate written undertakings from law students at the time of admission and prior to the commencement of any internship.

The Council clarified the use of social media. It allowed the following:

i. responsible legal awareness;

ii. academic discussion of judgments;

iii. accurate legal reporting;

iv. public legal education;

v. constitutional literacy;

vi. neutral case-law updates;

vii. academic lectures, articles or seminars;

viii. responsible use of official Court information;

ix. respectful discussion of legal principles arising from judgments and orders.

x. short-form legal education, including reels, shorts, brief videos, carousels, posts, threads, podcast clips or similar condensed digital formats, provided such content is accurate, contextual, non-soliciting, non-confidential, non-sensational, and does not convert complex legal questions into misleading outcome assurances.

However, the Council clarified that the line is crossed when content becomes:

i. promotional;

ii. sensational;

iii. misleading;

iv. mocking;

v. defamatory;

vi. scandalising;

vii. contemptuous;

viii. commercially exploitative;

ix. violative of confidentiality;

x. violative of Court rules, live-streaming rules or video-conferencing rules;

xi. inconsistent with the dignity of the profession;

xii. unsupported by statutory provisions, rules, notifications, circulars or judicial precedents where the content purports to explain a specific legal right, remedy, procedure, offence, limitation period, bail standard, matrimonial remedy, consumer remedy, property remedy or other legal consequence;

xiii. based upon fabricated judgments, fake citations, unverified screenshots, misleading excerpts, AI generated or otherwise non-existent case law, anonymous rumours or distorted summaries of Court proceedings.

Legal interns and students are now specifically prohibited from recording physical, virtual, or hybrid court hearings. The directive completely bans popular short-form video concepts, including "day in court" vlogs, "day in a chamber" reels, and "internship reveal" posts. Furthermore, students are barred from using internships under judges, senior advocates, or law firms to seek online followers, meaning court signage, robes, client files, and executive office settings can no longer be used as digital props.

"Law students are future members of the Bar. Internship is meant for learning discipline, humility, research, drafting, observation, court craft, professional ethics and responsibility. It is not meant for social media display, self-promotion or dramatisation of Court life. A further undertaking shall be obtained before any student is permitted or recommended to commence internship with any Court, Judge, Tribunal, Advocate, Senior Advocate, Law Officer, law firm, chamber, statutory body, public authority, corporate legal department, legal aid body or other legal institution", it said.

Under the newly outlined framework, State Bar Councils were mandated to designate Digital Ethics Committees and open online complaint portals to monitor and classify breaches into minor, serious, and aggravated categories. While minor infractions may receive counselling or warnings, aggravated breaches involving deepfakes, fabricated citations, or breaches of absolute confidentiality shall be referred for formal disciplinary or contempt proceedings.

The Bar Council of India further established a BCI Digital Ethics Nodal Cell to liaison directly with social media intermediaries for the prompt takedown and restriction of monetisation of content that is fraudulent, contemptuous, or professionally unethical.

The Council emphasized that this circular does not intend to suppress lawful freedom of expression, accurate legal reporting, or responsible public legal education. Advocates who disseminate legal awareness online are encouraged to handle content in a non-promotional manner, provided they clear disclaimers, utilize verifiable professional identifiers, and accurately disclose any usage of generative AI tools.

It also said that the Council may constitute a BCI Digital Ethics Nodal Cell comprising nominated members, officers, Advocates, technology aware volunteers, law teachers and law student volunteers under appropriate supervision. The Nodal Cell may coordinate with State Bar Councils, Bar Associations, Centres of Legal Education, chambers and social media platforms for monitoring trends, receiving escalations, preserving evidence, preparing advisories, maintaining standard formats, conducting training and facilitating lawful platform requests.

The Bar Council of India concluded with an appeal to the conscience of the Bar, urging all stakeholders to collectively protect the majesty of the Courts and the enduring trust of the common citizen.

Click here to read/download the Circular