BCI's Stance: Advocates Can't Moonlight as Journalists

The Bar Council of India has clarified that practicing advocates cannot work as journalists, either full-time or part-time unless the journalistic work is directly linked to the legal profession. This decision emerged from a Supreme Court case involving Mohd Kamran, signaling adherence to BCI rules limiting dual professions.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has reconfirmed its stance that practicing advocates are not permitted to engage in full-time or part-time journalism unless the work is strictly connected to the legal profession. This reaffirmation came during a Supreme Court hearing, led by a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Manmohan, which addressed the dual-profession dilemma.

The issue arose when advocate Mohd Kamran, who also identified as a freelance journalist, filed a pleading. Upon acknowledgment of the BCI's rule, Kamran submitted an affidavit, committing to end his journalistic pursuits and focus solely on his legal practice. The BCI cited Rule 49 to argue against dual engagement in professions.

The BCI pointed out that journalistic activity by advocates must be limited to articles and contributions related to the legal profession, ensuring no conflict with legal obligations. The Supreme Court petition followed an Allahabad High Court's decision involving defamation against former MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, with further hearings scheduled for 2025.

(With inputs from agencies.)