Beyond likes and shares: Social media conduct in the judicial ecosystem

The administration of justice does not end with the pronouncement of judgments inside courtrooms. It extends to how the Bench and the Bar are perceived beyond them. The advent of social media has irrevocably altered the landscape of public and private life, presenting a unique and profound ethical dilemma for the legal fraternity in India.

Judicial officers and members of the Bar, whose professional integrity is inextricably linked to public trust and the impartial administration of justice, find themselves navigating platforms that prioritise virality over veracity and spectacle over subtlety.

This article aims to comprehensively analyse the ethical and legal limitations governing the use of social media by India’s legal professionals, focusing on maintaining professional conduct, dignity and etiquette with special reference to the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules and the standards of judicial decorum. It specifically addresses emerging concerns such as 'reel culture' among advocates, online advertisement and the ethics of public appearances by both sitting and retired legal figures.

Judges and lawyers are increasingly present on platforms like Facebook, X, LinkedIn and Instagram, not just as individuals, but sometimes as opinion leaders and influencers. Tweets, reels, podcasts and online commentaries may appear innocuous at first glance. But for judges and advocates, such expressions have the potential to affect public confidence in the judicial process. This surge in online presence has raised crucial questions about professional conduct, confidentiality and the boundaries of acceptable public engagement for those tasked with upholding the law.

As judicial officers, we speak through our judgments. Our words are measured, our thoughts are distilled through the crucible of law and evidence and our conduct is held to a standard of impeccable neutrality. Yet, in this digital age, a new, untamed public square has emerged: social media. It is a world of instant opinions, viral content and frayed civility. This presents a unique challenge to the solemn duty of those of us on the Bench and our esteemed colleagues at the Bar. The question is no longer whether we can remain untouched by this tide, but how to navigate it without eroding the very foundations of our justice system.

The judiciary commands respect not through force but through faith. As the Supreme Court observed in C Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice AM Bhattacharjee (1995),

“The judiciary has no sword or purse, but only public confidence.”

This confidence is fragile and can be shaken by perceived impropriety, even if unintended.

The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002) set out six foundational values - independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality and competence. Similarly, the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997) adopted by the Supreme Court of India directs judges to refrain from political or public debate.

A judicial officer must maintain "judicial aloofness" - a state where they are perceived as completely removed from political, personal or controversial biases. On social media, this means absolutely no liking, sharing or commenting on posts related to political parties, candidates or controversial government policies. Even subtle commentary, a 'like', or a sharing of a related news report can be interpreted as pre-judging an issue, potentially leading to demands for recusal in future cases.

In Re: Justice CS Karnan (2017), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial restraint must extend to all spheres of life. A judge’s online comment, ‘like’ or association can easily be misread as bias. The safest path is digital minimalism - using social media strictly for official or educational purposes.

Thus, for the Bench, the path has been clearly illuminated by the Supreme Court. The highest court has remarked that a judge must live "like a hermit" and work "like a horse". This is not a call for asceticism, but a powerful metaphor for the isolation and detachment required for impartiality. Engaging on social media, especially by commenting on pending cases or expressing opinions on judgments, risks compromising this crucial detachment. Such actions can create a perception of bias, suggesting that a judge might be swayed by public opinion or influenced by online discourse. The neutrality we must project is not merely an ideal; it is the very basis of public trust in the judiciary.

Unlike judges, advocates enjoy broader expressive rights. Yet, as officers of the court, their liberty is tempered by professional ethics. The BCI Rules (Part VI, Chapter II, Section IV) prescribe standards of professional conduct. Rule 36 categorically prohibits direct or indirect advertising, solicitation or touting through any medium. Rule 36 states:

"An advocate shall not solicit work or advertise, either directly or indirectly, whether by circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communications, interviews not warranted by personal relations, furnishing false information, or otherwise."

The phrase "or otherwise" is the critical nexus for regulating digital conduct. While the Rule predates platforms like Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn, its spirit and intention clearly prohibit the use of these modern communication channels for professional canvassing. Any action by an advocate that can be construed as an attempt to "drum up" legal practice or a de facto advertisement falls under the purview of this prohibition.

The Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: Prashant Bhushan (2020) highlighted the fine line between free speech and contempt. The Court observed that “freedom of speech cannot be a license to scandalise the court or undermine public confidence in the judiciary.” Even criticism couched as opinion may have repercussions if it impairs institutional trust.

A responsible advocate must, therefore, view social media as an extension of professional ethics. A space to inform, not to perform.

The most visible transgression in the current digital ecosystem is the embrace of 'reel culture' - short, attention-grabbing videos, often set to music by some members of the Bar. In the age of digital marketing, this poses a growing challenge. Young lawyers increasingly use Instagram reels, LinkedIn posts and YouTube videos to showcase “success stories,” client feedback or case strategies - practices that often slip into the realm of self-promotion. While digital visibility is not inherently unethical, crossing into self-advertisement violates the principle that the profession must remain a service, not a business.

Such content risks trivialising the sanctity of court proceedings and eroding public perception of advocacy as a solemn profession. For instance, reels showcasing aggressive cross-examinations or “winning arguments” may mislead viewers about real courtroom decorum and the nuanced nature of advocacy. The BCI Rules expect advocates to conduct themselves with dignity and refrain from any action “unbecoming of an advocate.” Social media is no exception.

At the same time, there is a legitimate space for lawyers to use digital media for legal literacy, simplifying complex laws, sharing public legal updates or discussing constitutional rights. The challenge lies in the tone and purpose. When expression shifts from education to entertainment, dignity is the first casualty.

An emerging concern is the participation of retired judges and senior advocates in podcasts, televised discussions and online interviews. These platforms can enrich public understanding of the judiciary, but they also pose ethical dilemmas when discussions stray into commentary on pending cases, judgments of sitting judges or political issues.

In AM Bhattacharjee (1995), the Supreme Court emphasised that “retired judges continue to carry the halo of judicial office and must maintain conduct that sustains the dignity of the institution”. The same applies to retired judges who appear on media platforms. Their words carry institutional weight.

For practising advocates, podcasts can be informative but must never serve as indirect platforms for client solicitation or personal branding. Even “educational” channels must clearly avoid projecting personal achievement or professional superiority.

The line between dissemination and demonstration is delicate and often blurred. A moment’s lapse in judgment online can undo decades of earned credibility.

Social media misconduct can have serious professional consequences.

• For judges, it may amount to judicial impropriety, attracting administrative censure or even reference to the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution.

• For advocates, it may lead to disciplinary action by the State Bar Council under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

In Bar Council of Maharashtra v. MV Dabholkar (1976), the Supreme Court clarified that professional misconduct includes acts that “tend to bring reproach to the profession”. This extends naturally to digital conduct today.

Moreover, reckless online remarks can attract proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 if they “scandalise or lower the authority of the court”. The test, as reiterated In Re: Arundhati Roy (2002), is whether the act creates a “substantial risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice”.

Ultimately, the strength of the Indian judiciary rests upon public trust, which is built not only through judgments, but also through conduct. Both Bench and Bar must accept that the internet never forgets. A reel may go viral, a podcast may trend, but the impression it leaves about the justice system is lasting. Professional dignity requires avoiding sensationalism, steering clear of partisan politics and respecting boundaries of sub-judice matters. At a time when a fleeting post can go viral and a casual remark can be misinterpreted, silence often carries more weight than speech. For judges, dignified restraint is not an option, but a duty. For advocates, responsible expression is the mark of true professionalism. As Justice Felix Frankfurter aptly observed in Bridges v. California:

“The Court’s authority, possessed of neither the purse nor the sword, ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction."

In the digital age, the surest safeguard for both Bench and Bar remains the timeless virtues of dignity, propriety and ethical self-discipline.

Subhadeep Saha is a Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Agartala, Tripura.