What does the circular state ?
Social media is one of the major pinnacles in the development of the digital world. It is used widely by all categories of groups- political, social or professional. With reference to Bar Council of India, Circular No. BCI:D: 4657/2026, Advocates and their interaction with social media is addressed. It is premised on the facts that the use is not always positive.
Various circumstances have revealed that increased content creation has led to an amplified stretch of legal misinformation, selective clipping of proceedings without context, etc. leading to decreased confidence in the court and misadministration of justice. Apart from the aforementioned issue, the social media has also been used by advocates themselves in ways that alarm the judicial system of the country.
As dealt with in- Anil Pandey and Another v. The Bar Council of India[1], several concerns regarding the alleged increasing use of social media by certain Advocates for direct or indirect advertising, solicitation of professional work, promotional reels, monetised legal content, influencer collaborations, client testimonials and other forms of digital self-promotion were raised. [2]
The BCI considers the circular to be in the larger interest of the dignity of the Bar, the majesty of Courts and the purity of the justice delivery system. The circular makes it lucid that the document does not stand in prohibition of positive use of social media. It states:
“The Bar Council of India clarifies that this circular is not intended to discourage:
- responsible legal awareness;
- academic discussion of judgments;
- accurate legal reporting;
- public legal education;
- constitutional literacy;
- neutral case-law updates;
- academic lectures, articles or seminars;
- responsible use of official Court information;
- respectful discussion of legal principles arising from judgments and orders.
- short-form legal education, including reels, shorts, brief videos, carousels, posts, threads, podcast clips or similar condensed digital formats, provided such content is accurate, contextual, nonsoliciting, non-confidential, non-sensational, and does not convert complex legal questions into misleading outcome assurances”[3]
All these measures have been taken by the institution to ensure professional ethics. The evolving technology setups need safeguards as well as proper guidelines to navigate the judicial system of the country.
Another essential point is the fact that the circular is not limited to advocates for application. Several sections of the circular are intended to administer the professional behaviour and ethics of interns and law students. The circular has instructed any Court, Judge, Tribunal, Advocate, Senior Advocate, Law Officer, law firm, chamber, statutory body, public authority, corporate legal department, legal aid body or other legal institution taking an intern, to obtain an undertaking. The reasoning behind the same is that internships are “not meant for social media display, self-promotion or dramatisation of Court life.” [4]
The aforementioned has been the tale of the circular. However, this tale has several concerning anecdotes which need to be subjected to scrutiny-
Does the circular fulfil and stand in consonance with the Constitution?
Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression
The BCI circular states that it does not seek to police ordinary personal lives. Although the measure seems somewhat clear and direct, it has a lining of ambiguity considering the digital era. Today, a significant number of advocates, law students and interns create content related to their professional identity on social media. Such content serves multiple purposes, including public legal awareness, legal education, professional networking, and, for many creators, a legitimate source of income through platform monetization, sponsorship, or educational collaborations.
The circular states: “…….used for sensationalisation, solicitation, indirect advertisement, commercial branding, ridicule or lowering of professional dignity.”[5]
A defence in favour of the circular would be that there is no blanket restriction, rather it regulates only those forms of expression that amount to solicitation, commercial promotion, sensationalisation, or conduct likely to undermine the dignity of the legal profession. However, the circular’s undefined terms such as ‘commercial branding’, ‘indirect advertisement’, and ‘sensationalisation’ make it difficult to distinguish permissible legal education from prohibited professional promotion. Thus, in reality creating a blanket restriction.
The practice of such terms could also lead to making advocates hesitant to post legal opinions, comment on judgments, or participate in public debate. This is owing to the fact that many words used such as ‘contemptuous’ are subjective. The clauses would ultimately make the legal professional go silent on various important issues, thus taking away their right to freedom of speech and expression in fear of punishment and contempt of court. This would be detrimental not only for the justice system but also for the society as a whole.
The circular also affects the growing community of legal content creators who promote legal and public awareness. Such content promote legal education and provide an easy access to legal information. Thus, the circular has the potential to discourage the legal education and reduce opportunities for legal professionals to engage with the public through digital platforms.
Doctrine of Proportionality
In Modern Dental College & Res. Cen. & Ors v State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, the Supreme Court defined the ‘Doctrine of Proportionality’, and instated it to be composed of four elements- firstly, legitimate and proper purpose- which is fulfilled as the aim of the BCI circular is to preserve the dignity of the legal profession and curb legal misinformation. Second, rational connection, the circular stipulates ban on courtroom reels, recording court proceedings, using court names, signage etc. This would have a positive effect on the objective. The third pillar is ‘necessity’. This entails whether the current measures were necessary and indispensable. This is where the proportionality doctrine becomes tilted. The measures written in the circular do not project the least restrictive means to fulfil the objective where to curb a specific kind of content, the entirety of it is prohibited in practical sense owing to its undefined and unspecified use of diction. Lastly, balancing- the restriction must not cause greater harm to the constitutional right than the benefit it seeks to achieve. However, in the current scenario, the circular has hampered the right of the legal professionals to freely express by discouraging legal education, awareness, debates etc. As held in, Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain[6], exhibition of movies, cinematographs, videos and cable television is a facet of freedom of speech and expression and therefore, the circular tries to limit the right.
Doctrine of vagueness
As already covered, the circular contains the use of many words that remain undefined. This has a very clear chance of being used against advocates, law students and interns. The restrictions cover a very large umbrella of activities, however, the circular has left it to ‘context’ to judge what is restricted or not. This vagueness would be detrimental for advocates. The circular loses merit due to such vagueness as described in Kartar Singh v State of Punjab[7]:
“It is the basic principle of legal jurisprudence that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. It is insisted or emphasised that laws should give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning.”
Natural Justice
The circular also stands against the principles of Natural Justice. For instance, it did not hold the stakeholders in inclusivity. Although administrative circulars do not mandatorily require prior publication for feedback and objections, the wide scope and application of the present circular—including its applicability to law students and interns—warranted a more consultative approach before its issuance.
Secondly, Natural Justice requires administrative decisions to be supported by clear reasons and evidence. The BCI circular identifies concerns regarding social media misuse but does not disclose the empirical material underlying its conclusions. In the absence of such evidence, the breadth of the restrictions may be viewed as disproportionate to the harms sought to be addressed.
The BCI circular is meant to curb the unauthorized use of social media by advocates that ultimately reduces the confidence of people in the judicial system and hampers the dignity of the court. However, the same has to be implemented carefully. It has to comply with the rights of the advocates, law students and interns, as a part of the justice system as well as individuals. The circular has to be interpreted in a way that it confirms to the digital age, and the novice but relevant professions in the legal field.
[1] Supreme Court: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 817 of 2026
[2] BCI Circular No. BCI:D: 4657/2026 (Page 3, Para 2)
[3] BCI Circular No. BCI:D: 4657/2026 (Page 13, Para 4)
[4] BCI Circular No. BCI:D: 4657/2026 (Page 17, Para 3)
[5] BCI Circular No. BCI:D: 4657/2026 (Page 17, Para 1)
[6] 2007 (4) SCC 737
[7] 1994 (3) SCC 569