The Bar Council of India (BCI) on Monday informed the Supreme Court that the practising advocates cannot simultaneously work as full-time journalists, citing Rule 49 of the BCI Rules of Conduct, which prohibits dual professions.
The statement from BCI came during a hearing before a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Manmohan, which addressed the issue of whether a lawyer practising law can also be a journalist.
The matter relates to a petition filed by an advocate Mohd. Kamran who had also been working as a freelance journalist.
Counsel for Bar Council of India (BCI) told the Court that ‘as per the rules, an advocate who is enrolled with BCI cannot do the dual things’.
Justice Oka after hearing the Counsel from BCI said, Now since the controversy is put at rest, we will consider the issue on merits.
Justice Oka said, We have heard the counsel for BCI which has submitted that as per the rules laid down, an advocate cannot be allowed to pursue part-time or full-time journalism.
The petitioner filed an affidavit stating that he is no longer working as a journalist and will only practice as an advocate.
The Petitioner’s counsel accepted the correctness of the stand taken by counsel for BCI.
The Court said that we will consider the matter on merits on February 3, 2025.
With this clarification, the bench directed the matter to be listed in February 2025 to address the merits of the defamation case. It also stated that the BCI’s presence in further hearings would not be necessary as the controversy over the dual role was resolved.
The Top Court had on July 29 directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to look into the conduct of Advocate Mohd. Kamran, who filed a defamation case against former BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.
The Apex court had also asked the Bar Councils to take necessary action on Kamran’s working as a freelance journalist while simultaneously practising as an advocate.
The Court said that it would decide on merits whether it was permissible for a member of the Bar to simultaneously work as a journalist.
On July 29, 2024, a Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George directed the BCI and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to examine the dual roles of Kamran as a practising advocate and a state-accredited freelance journalist and take necessary action in the matter.
The Court had questioned Kamran’s dual roles and cited the BCI Rules on Professional Conduct and Etiquette, which prohibited practicing lawyers from engaging in other professions or businesses.
Chapter II of the BCI Rules states that an advocate could not engage in business or full-time salaried employment.
Kamran referred to Section 51 of Chapter II of the BCI Rules, which permitted advocates to engage in journalism, lecturing, and teaching, provided they did not engage in advertising and full-time employment.
The petitioner contended that he was not employed by any media organisation or receiving a salary, but only writing articles.
Kamran, apart from filing a defamation case against former BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh had alleged that Singh wrote defamatory letters to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, accusing him of having serious criminal cases registered against him, while also being a state-accredited journalist.
The High Court quashed the defamation case on multiple grounds, including the lack of public dissemination of the letters, which were deemed confidential communications.
Kamran moved the Apex Court challenging the High Court order.
In its July order, the Apex Court had also issued notice on Kamran’s plea challenging the High Court’s dismissal of his defamation complaint against Singh.
Kamran filed an affidavit in the Apex Court that he will not pursue journalism, either full-time or part-time, and that his sole focus would remain on practising law.
The court recorded this voluntary undertaking in its order, along with the BCI’s position, noting, “The Bar Council of India has taken the stand that advocates cannot pursue full-time journalism while practising law.”
