Bar Council of India launches sweeping Digital Ethics Code for legal profession

Legal experts have welcomed the move as timely, with senior advocates noting that unchecked digital content risks trivialising the legal profession. Representational pic

In a landmark move, the Bar Council of India (BCI) issued a comprehensive circular on July 17, 2026, regulating the digital conduct of advocates, law students, interns, and legal influencers.

The directive addresses concerns over sensational social media content, misleading legal advice, advertising, client solicitation, influencer-style promotion, and the misuse of artificial intelligence, while preserving the dignity of courts and public confidence in the justice system.

The circular follows the Supreme Court's notice in Anil Pandey v Bar Council of India (WP No 817 of 2026), which called for a Digital Ethics Code. It is based on recommendations of a BCI subcommittee constituted on June 8, 2026, and approved on July 11, 2026.

Background and context

The BCI's move follows a notice issued by the Supreme Court in Anil Pandey v. Bar Council of India (Writ Petition No. 817 of 2026), which raised concerns about advocates using social media for advertising, client solicitation, and influencer-style promotion. The petition sought a comprehensive Digital Ethics Code, reinforcing the urgency of institutional action.
The Council had already constituted a subcommittee on June 8, 2026, to deliberate on the issue. Its recommendations, approved on July 11, 2026, laid the foundation for the present circular.

Key provisions of the circular

• Social media misuse: Advocates and students are prohibited from creating reels, memes, or edited clips depicting court premises, chambers, or live-streamed hearings. The BCI warned that selective clipping and sensational commentary undermine judicial dignity.
• Legal misinformation: The Council flagged the rise of fake judgments, fabricated orders, and misleading influencer content. It cautioned against oversimplified or sensational advice that misguides litigants and exploits vulnerable individuals.
• Mandatory affidavits: A groundbreaking requirement mandates standalone affidavits at enrolment for advocates, undertakings at admission for law students, and compliance declarations before internships. These documents serve as preventive and evidentiary safeguards.
• AI and deepfake ban: The circular strictly prohibits AI-generated images, deepfake videos, voice-cloned audio, or synthetic content depicting judges, lawyers, litigants, or court proceedings.
• Institutional mechanism: State Bar Councils will establish Digital Ethics Committees, supported by a BCI Nodal Cell and an online complaint portal. Breaches will be classified and monitored through a graded system.
• Advertising restrictions: Rule 36 of the BCI Rules prohibits direct or indirect advertising. The circular clarifies that reels, thumbnails, and "lawyer life" content may amount to solicitation or trivialisation of court processes.
• Live-streaming safeguards: Referring to Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India (2018), the BCI reiterated that live-streaming is meant for transparency and education, not entertainment or ridicule.

Statutory Backing

The circular is firmly grounded in the Advocates Act, 1961. It draws authority from:

• Section 7(1)(b): laying down standards of professional conduct.
• Section 7(1)(d): safeguarding rights and privileges of advocates.
• Section 49(1)(c): prescribing rules of conduct and etiquette.
• Section 35: disciplinary action for professional misconduct.
• The BCI emphasised that the circular is not merely moral guidance but a statutory directive enforceable under existing law.

Judicial Precedents

The circular cites several Supreme Court judgments to reinforce its provisions:

• Bar of Indian Lawyers v DK Gandhi (2009): reaffirmed that the legal profession is sui generis and cannot be compared to ordinary business.
• Bar Council of India v AK Balaji (2018): held that ethics apply to both litigation and non-litigation work, extending to drafting, opinions, and professional discussions.
• Ex-Capt Harish Uppal v Union of India (2003): clarified that courts retain supervisory power over conduct inside courtrooms.
• R Muthukrishnan v Registrar General, Madras High Court (2019): stressed that proceedings must be dignified and orderly.

Implications for the profession

The circular underscores that misconduct in digital spaces will attract disciplinary action, ranging from reprimand to suspension or removal from practice. It also warns that misuse of synthetic media may trigger consequences under the IT Act, Digital Personal Data Protection Act, and contempt of court provisions.

By mandating affidavits, prohibiting AI misuse, and setting up monitoring mechanisms, the BCI has signaled its intent to preserve the dignity of courts and safeguard public trust in justice delivery.

Balancing Digital Expression with Professional Ethics

Legal experts have welcomed the move as timely, with senior advocates noting that unchecked digital content risks trivialising the legal profession. Law students have also expressed the need to balance creative expression with professional and ethical obligations. Bar Associations across states are expected to formally adopt the circular in the coming weeks.

The July 17 circular represents a decisive step in adapting professional ethics to the digital era. By extending the traditional duties of dignity, confidentiality, and restraint to online conduct, the Bar Council of India has reaffirmed that the legal profession is not a platform for self-promotion, but a solemn calling dedicated to the pursuit of justice.

Legal experts voice their views

Advocate Jamshed Mistry, Counsel, Supreme Court of India/Bombay High Court
"The recent circular is fine as a guideline on what a lawyer in India should and should avoid on social media and promotion. In several countries of the world, full advertising is permitted by law. The best way forward for India in my opinion is self governance by lawyers in keeping with the current Advocates Act. Clause 12(x) of the BCI guidelines gives a practicing advocate adequate bandwidth to put out his legal work and thoughts to the general public. A healthy debate between the Bar Council and members of the bar on a regular basis can further refine the guidelines."

Dr Tanaya Kamlakar, Assistant Professor of Law, Maharashtra National Law University Mumbai

"The Bar Council of India's Digital Ethics Framework is a timely response to the changing digital landscape of the legal profession. As legal communication expands across social media, podcasts, and AI platforms, ethical boundaries must evolve. The framework seeks to address misleading content, indirect promotion, and technology-driven challenges while preserving public trust. Its implementation must balance professional accountability with free expression, ensuring that digital engagement remains accurate, responsible, and aligned with the values of the legal profession."