Breaking| "Not Permissible For Advocate To Do Full-Time Journalism": Supreme Court

The Bar Council of India (BCI) today informed the Supreme Court that an Advocate practicing law cannot be at the same time an accredited journalist.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by Advocate Mohd. Kamran, raising concerns over his simultaneous roles as a freelance journalist and practicing lawyer. Kamran had initiated a defamation case against former BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.

The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Manmohan observed, "It is not permissible for an Advocate to do full-time journalism."

At the outset, the Counsel for the BCI informed the Bench that they filed their response on Friday (December 13).

Justice Oka asked, "What is your stand taken by you?"

"Lordship, they cannot practice law and at the same time be accredited journalists," the Counsel for BCI submitted. 

The Bench stated that now the Advocate has given an undertaking. "Initially, he had taken a stand that he could do both. Therefore, we wanted Bar Council to respond." Jstice Oka said. 

Taking note of the affidavit dated November 13, 2024, whereby the petitioner stated that he would not engage in journalism either full-time or part-time and will continue to pratice as an Advocate, the Court questioned the counsel for the petitioner, "Are you accepting this? Or should we adjudicate on this also?"

To this, the Counsel clarified, "We are not doing this (Jornalism). We are practicing law only."

The Court noted that the notice has been issued in the main matter. Accordingly, the Court said that it will hear the case on merits. The Bench also clarified that the presence of BCI is not required as the controversy is over now. 

The matter is scheduled for hearing the main matter on February 3, 2025. 

Pertinently, on October 21, the Court had referred to an earlier order dated July 29, 2024, directing the Registry to issue fresh notice to both the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, with the matter returnable on November 29, 2024. "As per order dated 29.07.2024, Registry to issue fresh notice to BCI and Bar Council of State of Uttar Pradesh, returnable on November 29," the Court ordered.

Justice Oka had noted, "How can a member of the Bar claim to be both a freelance journalist and an Advocate? This is highly unprofessional." He had further urged Kamran’s counsel to seek instructions from the petitioner, stating that Kamran must clarify whether he wishes to continue as a lawyer or a journalist, as holding both positions simultaneously was inappropriate.

"How can a member of the Bar say that I am working as a freelance journalist as well as the member of the bar? He has to make a statement; either he has to be an advocate or he has to be a freelance journalist. He can't have it both ways. You please take instructions," the Court had said. The Court had remarked that if Kamran chooses one profession, the issue of the Bar Council addressing his conduct would not arise. "If you are able to make that statement, the issue of the Bar Council to deal with your conduct will not arise," the Bench had said.

It is to be noted that on July 29, the Court had said, "We have perused the complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by the petitioner. At various places, the petitioner claims that he is a practicing Advocate and a Freelance State Accredited Journalist. This conduct needs to be looked into by the Bar Council of State of Uttar Pradesh as well as the Bar Council of India. The Bar Councils will have to consider whether the rules of professional ethics permit this."

"Registry to forward a copy of complaint at Annexure ‘P-8’ to the State Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India for taking necessary action along with a copy of this Order," the Court had directed.

Cause Title: Mohd. Kamran v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [SLP(Crl) No. 9615/2024; Diary No. 28200 / 2024]