The Bar Speaks to the Screen: Bar Council of India Moves to Regulate Social Media Conduct of Advocates

On 17 July 2026, the Bar Council of India issued a circular (BCI:D:4657/2026) that, for the first time, attempts a comprehensive institutional response to a problem every practising lawyer has watched grow in real time: reels shot in court corridors, “day in chambers” videos, clipped and captioned live-streamed hearings, and self-styled legal influencers dispensing guaranteed outcomes to strangers online. The circular is addressed not only to Advocates but to State Bar Councils, Bar Associations, law colleges and universities, law firms and chambers, internship coordinators, law students at every level, and social media platforms themselves.

This is not a stray advisory. It is the product of a deliberative process that began with a sub-committee constituted by the General Council on 8 June 2026, was reported back on 11 July 2026, and has now been overtaken or perhaps reinforced by a related development: on 14 July 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice in Anil Pandey and Another v. The Bar Council of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 817 of 2026), a public interest petitionLegal Action for Public GoodA legal action initiated in a court of law for the protection of public interest, rather than to enforce the rights of an individual. seeking a comprehensive Digital Ethics Code for the profession. The Council frames its circular as a pre-existing response to concerns the petition has now separately raised, returnable before the Court on 15 September 2026.

What exactly is the Council worried about?

The circular identifies two overlapping mischiefs. The first is content generated by Advocates, law students and interns themselves reels and short videos filmed in court premises, chambers or during internships, often dramatized, sometimes used for visible self-promotion. The second, arguably more serious in the Council’s own framing, is the selective clipping and captioning of live-streamed court proceedings, frequently accompanied by mocking or scandalising commentary directed at judges, arguing counsel or litigants.

Layered on top of both is a third concern: the spread of legal misinformation, including fabricated judgments, invented extracts of orders, and “legal influencer” content sometimes from persons who are not enrolled Advocates at all that promises guaranteed bail, assured acquittals or instant relief to viewers who have no way of verifying any of it.

The Council notes, with apparent approval, that the Kerala High Court Advocates Association had already cautioned its members against videos and reels on High Court premises, invoking Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961Primary Legal FrameworkThe central legislation governing the legal profession in India, including enrollment, conduct, and disciplinary actions for advocates. and the possibility of disciplinary action under Section 35. The national circular reads, in part, as an extension of that local concern to the profession at large.

The legal foundation: not new ethics, but old ethics applied

A recurring theme through the document is that the Council is not inventing a new code of conduct. It is applying the existing Preamble to Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules which requires an Advocate to conduct himself “at all times” in a manner befitting an officer of the court, a privileged member of the community, and a gentleman to a medium the Rules’ framers could not have anticipated. The circular leans on a cluster of existing provisions: Rules 1 and 2 (dignity and respect toward courts), Rule 3 (improper influence on courts), Rule 4 (restraint and avoidance of scurrilous language), Rules 5 and 7 (restricted use of robes and bands outside court), Rule 17 (professional confidentiality), Rule 24 (abuse of client confidence), and significantly for the influencer economy Rule 36 (prohibition on direct or indirect advertisement and solicitation) and Rule 37 (prohibition on lending one’s name or standing to unauthorised practice of law).

The statutory scaffolding is drawn from Sections 7(1)(b), 7(1)(d) and 7(1)(g) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (the Council’s power to lay down standards of conduct, safeguard advocates’ interests, and supervise State Bar Councils), Section 49(1)(c) (rule-making power over professional conduct), and Section 35, which governs disciplinary proceedings including reprimand, suspension, or removal from the roll where an Advocate is found guilty of professional misconduct.

The circular also gestures toward the wider statutory landscape that digital misconduct can now attract: the Information Technology Act, 2000; the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, particularly as they relate to synthetically generated content; the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and its 2025 Rules; and the newer criminal codes the Bharatiya Nyaya SanhitaNew Criminal CodeA proposed new criminal code in India, intended to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860., the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha SanhitaNew Criminal Procedure CodeA proposed new criminal procedure code in India, intended to replace the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1973., and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023New Evidence ActA proposed new evidence act in India, intended to replace the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.. The Council is careful to say this is not meant to convert every social media lapse into a criminal or regulatory proceeding, but rather to remind the profession that consequences can extend well beyond a bar complaint.

Where the Council draws the line

Perhaps the most useful part of the circular, for a practising Advocate trying to self-audit, is its attempt at a workable test. The Council states that the test is not whether a post literally says “hire me.” It is whether the content, viewed as a whole, uses the court, court premises, judicial proceedings, professional work, robe, chamber, client matter, or litigation experience to promote the creator, sensationalise legal work, build a following, or lower the dignity of the institution.

Certain categories of content are explicitly flagged as improper, including but not limited to:

Reels, videos or promotional content shot inside courtrooms, corridors, bar-rooms or chambers, in a manner inconsistent with dignity and decorum

Clipping, editing or recirculating live-streamed proceedings with mocking captions, music or commentary

Using the robe, court signage, cause lists, briefs or client files as props for personal branding

Content promising “guaranteed bail,” “divorce in a few days,” “sure acquittal” or similar outcome guarantees

Interns or juniors publishing chamber or court content that the supervising Advocate is not himself permitted to publish

Undisclosed use of AI-generated images, deepfakeSynthetic MediaSynthetically generated media in which a person in an existing image or video is replaced with someone else’s likeness, often using AI. video or voice-cloned audio depicting judges, counsel, litigants or proceedings

Notably, the Council does not treat this as a blanket prohibition on legal education content. Reels, shorts and other short-form formats are expressly permitted where the content is accurate, contextual, non-soliciting, non-confidential and does not reduce complex legal questions to misleading assurances of outcome. Advocates who wish to publish legal awareness content are encouraged—not compelled— to disclose their name, enrolment number and State Bar Council, framed as a transparency measure rather than an advertisement.

New compliance instruments

The circular is accompanied by six annexures that will be of direct practical relevance to Advocates, students and institutions:

A standalone sworn affidavit to be executed at the stage of enrolment, distinct from the general enrolment form, in which the candidate affirms awareness of and compliance with these digital conduct standards.

A student undertaking, to be obtained separately at admission to any law course and again before every internship, restraining students from recording, publishing or circulating court or chamber content.

A stakeholder declaration, for voluntary adoption by State Bar Councils, Bar Associations, law firms, chambers and Centres of Legal Education.

A platform liaison format, for lawful requests to social media intermediaries concerning offending content.

A format for approved public legal awareness content, intended for institutions producing legal literacy material.

A disclosure and disclaimer format for individual legal content creators, covering AI-generated material and outcome disclaimers.

The Council is explicit that none of this creates a new ground to refuse, defer or deny enrolment beyond what the Advocates Act and validly framed Rules already permit a caveat that will matter to anyone worried about? the affidavit becoming a fresh gatekeeping hurdle. It is equally explicit that the immediate operation of the circular as a professional direction does not depend on the eventual, and still pending, insertion of a formal chapter on digital ethics into the Bar Council of India Rules that insertion remains a draft (Annexure G) for future consideration by the General Council.

Institutional machinery: Digital Ethics Committees and graded breaches

Each State Bar Council is directed to designate a Digital Ethics Committee or Nodal Group, and to open a complaint channel a portal, dedicated email, or equivalent for receiving grievances about misuse of court premises, robes, AI-generated content, deepfakes, or misleading legal advice. The Council also proposes a Bar Council of India Digital Ethics Nodal Cell at the national level, intended to liaise with major platforms (the circular names Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, X and WhatsApp) for faster review of flagged content.

For practical implementation, the circular introduces a graded classification of breaches minor, serious and aggravated with correspondingly proportionate responses ranging from informal counselling and a request for voluntary deletion, at the minor end, up to disciplinary proceedings under the Advocates Act for wilful, repeated, commercial or fraud-adjacent conduct, including deepfakes and voice cloning, at the aggravated end. The Council repeatedly stresses that any adverse action must follow a fair, proportionate process with an opportunity to be heard, and that a mere unverified screenshot or anonymous complaint should not by itself be treated as proof of misconduct.

Judicial anchoring

The circular is unusually heavy with case law for what is, formally, an administrative direction a choice that seems designed to pre-empt the argument that it exceeds the Council’s rule-making mandate. It invokes Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi P.S., National Institute of Communicable Diseases for the proposition that the legal profession is sui generisOf Its Own KindA Latin phrase meaning ‘of its own kind’ or ‘unique,’ used to describe something that is in a class by itself and cannot be compared to others. and not comparable to an ordinary business or service under the Consumer Protection Act; Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji (2018) 5 SCC 379 for the point that legal ethics apply to non-litigation work—drafting, opinions, chamber conferences and not merely to court appearances; Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018) 10 SCC 639 for the proposition that live-streaming was approved for transparency and public education, not for commercial exploitation, satire or entertainment; Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45 on the courts’ own supervisory control over conduct inside courtrooms; and V.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan (1979) 1 SCC 308 for Justice Krishna Iyer’s observation that professional discipline exists to protect the public and the profession, not merely to punish. It also cites a recent Supreme Court ruling In Re: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases, Suo Motu Writ PetitionCourt’s Own MotionA writ petition initiated by the court on its own motion, without a formal request from any party, typically in matters of public importance. (Criminal) No. 2 of 2025 on the confidentiality obligation owed by Advocates to clients under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

What this means in practice

For working Advocates, the immediate takeaway is procedural discipline rather than any dramatic new restriction on lawful expression. The circular repeatedly says it does not intend to police ordinary personal life, dress or private social media use, and that the line is crossed only where personal content is deliberately linked to professional identity, court access, or client work in a way that solicits, sensationalises or trivialises. For chambers and senior Advocates supervising interns, the more concrete obligation is to obtain the fresh internship undertaking before placement and to brief juniors on the first day on what may and may not be recorded or shared from chamber and court work.

For Centres of Legal Education, the burden is heavier: standalone undertakings at admission and before every internship, orientation modules on digital ethics, and a maintained register of undertakings that can be produced to the Bar Council on inspection.

Whether this circular survives, in its present form, the scrutiny it will inevitably receive once the Supreme Court takes up the Anil Pandey petition in September remains to be seen particularly on questions of proportionality, the scope of the Council’s rule-making power under Section 49, and how graded enforcement will work in practice across twenty-plus State Bar Councils with very different institutional capacities. For now, it stands as the most detailed statement the Bar Council of India has yet issued on where professional dignity ends and digital self-promotion begins.