Overview
In recent years, social media has essentially changed the manner of creation, consumption, and sharing of information among the public. Platforms such as Instagram, YouTube, LinkedIn and other digital channels have generated opportunities for advocates in the form of legal education, professional engagements and public awareness. However, this has also distorted the line between genuine expression for public knowledge and professional marketing or solicitation.
For a long time, advocates have been restricted from undertaking any direct or indirect marketing, promotion or solicitation of work under the Advocates Act, 1961. Such restrictions are based on basic principle that the legal profession should thrive on values such as professional independence, dignity and public trust, rather than commercial promotion.
This issue has recently come to light with increasing popularity of lawyers and advocates posting short and long form promotional content, influencer collaborations and monetised legal content. Further, the usage of AI generated content, deepfakes and edited content of court proceedings has worsened the issue.
Recognising the growing role of social media in professional life, the Bar Council of India (“BCI”), on 17 July 2026, introduced guidelines governing the social media conduct of advocates, law students and legal interns. These guidelines reinforce the application of professional ethics and standards of conduct to online platforms.
From Supreme Court Proceedings to BCI Guidelines: What Changed?
The recent developments could be viewed in the context of Anil Pandey & Anr. v. Bar Council of India (2026) which laid out the concerns regarding digital solicitation and social media conduct by advocates. Subsequently, the Supreme Court issued notice to the BCI in a petition raising concerns regarding professional conduct of advocates and also sought a framework on Digital Ethics Code and a Code of Digital Professional Conduct.
Accordingly, on 17 July 2026, the BCI issued its detailed circular concerning the maintenance of dignity, restraint and professional ethics in the use of social media by advocates, law students and interns via Circular No. BCI: D: 4657/2026. The guidelines issued reflect a simple belief that the obligations related to the professional conduct shall remain the same even if it is taking place online.
Key Highlights of the BCI Social Media Guidelines
Courtroom and Court-Premises Content
Firstly, Advocates/interns/law students shall exercise caution and restraint in recording or circulation of any content from court premises i.e. court rooms, bar rooms, judge’s chambers, etc. or any other judicial spaces. Use of camera in a manner which has an impact on the dignity, decorum or functioning of the institution shall be in violation of the guidelines.
Sensationalisation of Court Proceedings
The use of selective clips and their circulation with dramatic titles, background music, voice-overs, thumbnails or commentary are not allowed as they could create a misleading impression of court proceedings.
Ridicule or mockery of Judicial Proceedings
Any content which attempts to mock or ridicule either the judges, advocates, litigants, witnesses or the judicial proceedings shall be inconsistent with the professional and dignified conduct of members of the Bar.
Publication/circulation of AI-Generated content/Deepfakes
Acknowledging the risks posed by artificial intelligence the guidelines restrict creation, publication or circulation of any i.e. AI-generated content illustrating judges, advocates, litigants or court proceedings, including deepfakes and voice-cloned recordings, as it can cause false impressions about judicial proceedings or individuals.
Fabricated Judgments and Altered Judicial Orders
Publication/ circulation of fabricated judgements, orders or deceptive representations of judicial decision is also restricted by the guidelines.
Legal Misinformation
Any inaccurate or misleading legal information that is likely to mislead or confuse public especially any short-form legal content without reference to the underlying judgment, statute or factual context.
Misuse of Professional Identity
Advocates attempting or using their professional designation in a manner which shows any special influence, authority or guaranteed outcomes before any court raises serious ethical concerns.
Confidentiality and Professional Interactions
Lastly, confidential information with respect to Client conferences, chamber discussions, case-related communications, virtual hearings, documents and other confidential professional interactions should not be converted into social-media material merely because they are suitable for online content.
BCI Rules and Rule 36: The Existing Framework on Advertising and Solicitation
The recent guidelines must be read alongside Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules, framed under Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Rule 36 establishes the fundamental restriction against advocates directly or indirectly advertising or soliciting professional work.
This prohibition extends beyond conventional advertisements. It covers various forms of conduct intended to procure professional employment, including solicitation through advertisements, circulars, personal communications, touts and other promotional mechanisms. A 2008 amendment to Rule 36 of the Advocates Act 1961 permitted advocates to maintain professional websites containing limited information, including their name, contact details, enrolment particulars, qualifications and areas of practice, subject to the prescribed conditions and disclaimer. However, this limited permission should not be understood as a general authorisation for unrestricted digital marketing.
Therefore, the recent BCI circular complements Rule 36 rather than replacing it. While Rule 36 primarily addresses advertising and solicitation, the newer guidelines address the wider question of the manner in which advocates, students and interns should conduct themselves in the digital environment.
What Can and Cannot Advocates Do Now?
| Can | Cannot |
|---|---|
| Share accurate legal and educational content. | Undertake either direct/indirect solicitation through social media platforms. |
| Share/Discussion on laws, recent legal developments, and judgements. | Sensationalize, mock or distort court proceedings. |
| Engage in academic discussions, podcasts and professional forums. | Record or broadcast unauthorised content from courtrooms or court premises. |
| Create informative, non-promotional legal content. | Use reels, photographs or videos from court premises for self-promotion or branding. |
| Explain legal principles without guaranteeing outcomes. | Make exaggerated, misleading, clickbait or outcome-based claims. |
| Undertake responsible use of AI for authentic legal education, with disclosure where required. | Generate or circulate AI content including voice clones or synthetic content depicting judges, advocates, litigants or judicial proceedings. |
| Discuss decided cases accurately and in context. | Publish fabricated judgments, altered orders or misleading representations of judicial decisions. |
| Offering general legal information with professional dignity. | Creation/publication of videos either mocking judges, advocates, litigants, witnesses or the judicial process. |
Consequences of Violation
The disciplinary framework under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 extends to instances where an advocate is alleged to have committed professional or other misconduct. In this context, inappropriate or non-compliant conduct on social media may expose an advocate to disciplinary proceedings, with sanctions determined by the nature and gravity of the conduct. These may range from:
- Reprimand;
- Suspension of the right to practise for a specified period; to
- Removal from the State roll of advocates.
The BCI’s recent framework also provides for a graduated response to digital misconduct. Depending on the circumstances, an initial response may include counselling and removal or correction of the offending content, with escalation to disciplinary proceedings where warranted.
Conclusion
Thus, the guidelines issued by the Bar Council of India on digital conduct of advocates signify a crucial development in regulation of the professional conduct of legal professionals. These guidelines are not intended to prohibit advocates from maintaining a digital presence or using social media for legal education and professional discourse. Rather, these new guidelines aim to inculcate a sense of dignity, professionalism and responsibility towards their digital conduct.
Publications are for general information and do not constitute legal advice.
← All articles