The Bar Council of India has issued a new set of strict guidelines concerning the digital and social media activities of legal professionals. These directives aim to uphold the dignity of the courts and the integrity of the justice system.
The Council noted a concerning trend where professional settings, judicial attire, and live court proceedings were being exploited for commercial and sensational purposes.
To address these issues, the Council has outlined several categories of prohibited conduct that all advocates are urged to avoid.
The circular states, “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 are now prohibited from creating reels, videos, photographs, or promotional material within court premises, courtrooms, corridors, Bar rooms, chambers, or judicial buildings if such content compromises professional dignity and decorum.
The regulatory circular explicitly forbids the use of bands, gowns, or robes for public display, reels, posts, promotional photographs, or social media performances. This prohibition stems from the violation of the prescribed dress code, which restricts the wearing of gowns and bands in public areas except for ceremonial events.
Furthermore, legal practitioners are barred from utilizing court buildings, court names, court signage, briefs, cause lists, case files, client documents, or chamber environments as props for personal promotion, glamorous social media branding, or content designed to gain followers.
The directive emphasizes, “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.”
The digital landscape has also seen an increase in legal misinformation, fabricated judgments, and misleading guarantees of legal outcomes, often spread by individuals not enrolled as advocates and self-proclaimed 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.
Following a review of a prior cautionary notice from the Kerala High Court Advocates Association under the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India has adopted these measures after deliberations and a report from a specialized Sub-Committee. This regulatory action is further supported by recent proceedings before the Supreme Court of India in Anil Pandey and Another v. The Bar Council of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 817 of 2026), where the Apex Court issued a notice concerning the misuse of social media for direct or indirect advertising, solicitation of work, and commercial self-promotion by legal practitioners.
The Bar Council of India clarified that the legal profession in India is unique, considered a noble and learned profession intrinsically linked to the administration of justice, rather than a commercial enterprise or a platform for personal publicity. Citing landmark judgments in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi and Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji, the Council reaffirmed that the ethical standards of the legal profession apply equally to both litigation and non-litigation areas, including chamber work and legal opinions. It also stated that foreign jurisdiction standards cannot be adopted in India to circumvent the statutory prohibition against advertising.
Exercising its statutory authority under Section 7(1)(b), Section 7(1)(g), and Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Council has declared the circular to be an immediate professional directive. Violations of these directives may lead to disciplinary action under Section 35 of the Act, which can include 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 could result in severe legal repercussions under the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
To ensure compliance at the grassroots level, the Council has implemented a comprehensive enforcement mechanism. All candidates seeking enrollment with a State Bar Council will be required to submit a separate sworn affidavit confirming their commitment to digital restraint and professional confidentiality. Similarly, Centres of Legal Education must obtain written undertakings from law students at the time of admission and before commencing any internship.
The Council has provided clarification on the use of social media, permitting the following:
i. responsible legal awareness;
ii. academic discussion of judgments;
iii. accurate legal reporting;
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 specified that content crosses the line when it becomes:
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 explicitly prohibited from recording physical, virtual, or hybrid court hearings. The directive completely bans popular short-form video formats such as “day in court” vlogs, “day in a chamber” reels, and “internship reveal” posts. Furthermore, students are barred from leveraging internships with judges, senior advocates, or law firms for online follower acquisition, 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 new framework, State Bar Councils are required to establish Digital Ethics Committees and create online complaint portals to monitor and categorize breaches into minor, serious, and aggravated offenses. While minor infractions may result in counseling or warnings, aggravated breaches involving deepfakes, fabricated citations, or violations of absolute confidentiality will be referred for formal disciplinary or contempt proceedings.
The Bar Council of India has also established a BCI Digital Ethics Nodal Cell to liaise directly with social media intermediaries for the swift removal and monetization restriction of content deemed fraudulent, contemptuous, or professionally unethical.
The Council stressed that this circular is not intended to stifle legitimate freedom of expression, accurate legal reporting, or responsible public legal education. Advocates who disseminate legal awareness online are encouraged to manage their content in a non-promotional manner, provided they include clear disclaimers, use verifiable professional identifiers, and accurately disclose any use of generative AI tools.
It also stated that the Council may form a BCI Digital Ethics Nodal Cell composed of nominated members, officers, Advocates, technology-aware volunteers, law teachers, and law student volunteers under appropriate supervision. This Nodal Cell will coordinate with State Bar Councils, Bar Associations, Centres of Legal Education, chambers, and social media platforms for trend monitoring, receiving escalations, preserving evidence, preparing advisories, maintaining standard formats, conducting training, and facilitating lawful platform requests.
The Bar Council of India concluded by appealing to the conscience of the Bar, urging all stakeholders to collectively safeguard the majesty of the Courts and the enduring trust of the general public.
