The Bar Council of India informed the Supreme Court that a practising advocate cannot work simultaneously as a full-time journalist. This is due to the bar under Rule 49 of the BCI Rules of Conduct.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih had earlier sought the stand of the BCI on whether an advocate can be a full-time journalist. The bench considered the issue while hearing a petition filed by an advocate, who was working as a freelance journalist, seeking the quashing of a defamation case.
Today, the BCI’s counsel informed the bench, “They cannot practice law and simultaneously also be an accredited journalist.” The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he wouldn’t work as a journalist, whether full-time or part-time and was only practising law.
“The Bar Council Of India of India has taken a stand that it is not permissible for an advocate to do full-time journalism,” the bench recorded in the order. The bench also recorded the voluntary undertaking of the petitioner that he would refrain from the field of journalism, whether full-time or part-time.
The bench then posted the matter to February 2025 for the determination of the merits (regarding the defamation case). The bench clarified that the presence of BCI is no longer required as the controversy is over now.
