A practicing advocate cannot work as a journalist on the side, since there are rules prohibiting such dual roles for lawyers, the Bar Council of India (BCI) informed the Supreme Court on Monday [Mohd Kamran vs State of Uttar Pradesh and anr]..The Court had earlier sought the BCI's input on this issue after it noticed that a petitioner before the Court claimed to be both a lawyer and a freelance journalist, leading the Court to question whether such dual roles are allowed. The Court had earlier orally observed that lawyers cannot be allowed to simultaneously work as journalists.A division bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Manmohan today took on record BCI's stance that Rule 49 of the BCI Rules (Chapter II, Part VI) does not allow a person to professionally pursue both litigation and journalism. It also recorded the petitioner's submission that he no longer worked as a journalist."We have heard the learned 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 has filed an affidavit of undertaking stating that he is no longer working as journalist and will only practice as an advocate. Learned Petitioner counsel has today accepted the correctness of stand taken by counsel for BCI," the Court recorded..The BCI's views were part of an affidavit dated December 13, in which it clarified: "Full time journalism is clearly impermissible, while part time journalism might be allowed only under strict conditions."It added that part-time journalism may also not generally be allowed for practicing advocates, even if it does not involve conventional salary arrangements or an employer-employee relationship."Even (when it comes to) part time journalism - even if (it does not) involve a salary / employment contract -, it is the humble submission of BCI that the said professional activity will also be an embargo on the practice of law as an Advocate," the affidavit said. .The BCI acknowledged that Rule 51 appeared to allow advocates to engage in journalism. However, it limits the permissible scope of such activities to those connected to the lawyer's practice, the BCI said. "(Rule 51 is) not intended to sanction the simultaneous pursuit of two full time professions ... while journalism is not categorically prohibited, it is only permissible insofar as it does not detract from or conflict with the advocate’s primary professional obligations and maintains a meaningful nexus to the legal profession. This may encompass the publication of scholarly articles, opinion pieces on legal/ non – legal matters, or editorial contributions that further legal understanding. Even then, such engagements must be carefully regulated to ensure the advocate avoids any conflicts of interest, preserves the independence and dignity of the legal profession, and does not, in effect, amount to undertaking full time journalistic activity separate from their legal practice," its affidavit stated. .Having settled this legal issue, the Court said that it would hear the petition before it on merits during the next hearing on February 3, 2025..The plea before the top court involves a challenge to an Allahabad High Court order that had quashed criminal defamation proceedings against former parliamentarian Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.The defamation case concerns two letters written by Brij Bhushan Singh in September 2022 to the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister and Chief Secretary, stating that various criminal cases were pending against the appellant, Mohd. Kamran.Kamran contended that Singh addressed him as a conspirator and thief while circulating these letters on social media platforms and newspapers to tarnish his image and reputation.Kamran has sought the restoration of the defamation case against Singh. Notably, Singh is presently also facing trial over sexual harassment allegations levelled against him by six Indian wrestlers..Advocates Dr Vinod Kumar Tewari, Pramod Tiwari, Vivek Tiwari, Bhoopesh Pandey, Priyanka Dubey, Abhishek Tiwari and Archana Pandey, appeared for the appellant, Mohd. Kamran.Advocate Radhika Gautam appeared for the BCI. Advocates Shaurya Sahay and Aditya Kumar, appeared for the State..[Live Courtroom Exchange]
A practicing advocate cannot work as a journalist on the side, since there are rules prohibiting such dual roles for lawyers, the Bar Council of India (BCI) informed the Supreme Court on Monday [Mohd Kamran vs State of Uttar Pradesh and anr]..The Court had earlier sought the BCI's input on this issue after it noticed that a petitioner before the Court claimed to be both a lawyer and a freelance journalist, leading the Court to question whether such dual roles are allowed. The Court had earlier orally observed that lawyers cannot be allowed to simultaneously work as journalists.A division bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Manmohan today took on record BCI's stance that Rule 49 of the BCI Rules (Chapter II, Part VI) does not allow a person to professionally pursue both litigation and journalism. It also recorded the petitioner's submission that he no longer worked as a journalist."We have heard the learned 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 has filed an affidavit of undertaking stating that he is no longer working as journalist and will only practice as an advocate. Learned Petitioner counsel has today accepted the correctness of stand taken by counsel for BCI," the Court recorded..The BCI's views were part of an affidavit dated December 13, in which it clarified: "Full time journalism is clearly impermissible, while part time journalism might be allowed only under strict conditions."It added that part-time journalism may also not generally be allowed for practicing advocates, even if it does not involve conventional salary arrangements or an employer-employee relationship."Even (when it comes to) part time journalism - even if (it does not) involve a salary / employment contract -, it is the humble submission of BCI that the said professional activity will also be an embargo on the practice of law as an Advocate," the affidavit said. .The BCI acknowledged that Rule 51 appeared to allow advocates to engage in journalism. However, it limits the permissible scope of such activities to those connected to the lawyer's practice, the BCI said. "(Rule 51 is) not intended to sanction the simultaneous pursuit of two full time professions ... while journalism is not categorically prohibited, it is only permissible insofar as it does not detract from or conflict with the advocate’s primary professional obligations and maintains a meaningful nexus to the legal profession. This may encompass the publication of scholarly articles, opinion pieces on legal/ non – legal matters, or editorial contributions that further legal understanding. Even then, such engagements must be carefully regulated to ensure the advocate avoids any conflicts of interest, preserves the independence and dignity of the legal profession, and does not, in effect, amount to undertaking full time journalistic activity separate from their legal practice," its affidavit stated. .Having settled this legal issue, the Court said that it would hear the petition before it on merits during the next hearing on February 3, 2025..The plea before the top court involves a challenge to an Allahabad High Court order that had quashed criminal defamation proceedings against former parliamentarian Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.The defamation case concerns two letters written by Brij Bhushan Singh in September 2022 to the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister and Chief Secretary, stating that various criminal cases were pending against the appellant, Mohd. Kamran.Kamran contended that Singh addressed him as a conspirator and thief while circulating these letters on social media platforms and newspapers to tarnish his image and reputation.Kamran has sought the restoration of the defamation case against Singh. Notably, Singh is presently also facing trial over sexual harassment allegations levelled against him by six Indian wrestlers..Advocates Dr Vinod Kumar Tewari, Pramod Tiwari, Vivek Tiwari, Bhoopesh Pandey, Priyanka Dubey, Abhishek Tiwari and Archana Pandey, appeared for the appellant, Mohd. Kamran.Advocate Radhika Gautam appeared for the BCI. Advocates Shaurya Sahay and Aditya Kumar, appeared for the State..[Live Courtroom Exchange]
