Editor,
The recent circular issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI) regulating the use of social media by advocates is a timely and commendable step to preserve the dignity of the legal profession in the digital age. While social media has become an effective platform for spreading legal awareness and educating citizens about their rights, its misuse by some members of the legal fraternity has raised serious ethical concerns.
In recent years social media has been flooded with “One Day in Court” reels, courtroom vlogs, selfies inside court premises, and videos of advocates portraying court proceedings as entertainment. Such content may attract likes and followers but it diminishes the solemnity of courts and the nobility of the legal profession. Courts are temples of justice not locations for creating viral content. Advocates are officers of the court and their primary duty is to uphold justice not seek social media popularity.
The BCI has rightly reminded advocates that professional ethics extend to the digital world. Confidential client information, ongoing proceedings or disrespectful remarks against judges, courts, or fellow advocates have no place on social media. Such conduct not only violates professional ethics but also erodes public confidence in the justice delivery system.
The circular also encourages the responsible use of technology including artificial intelligence. While AI can assist legal research and drafting it can never replace an advocate’s independent judgment and professional responsibility. Every piece of legal information shared online must be accurate, verified and ethically presented.
The direction to State Bar Councils to conduct awareness programmes is equally welcome. Young advocates should be trained to use social media responsibly for legal education and public awareness rather than self-promotion. Ethical conduct should remain the hallmark of the profession whether inside a courtroom or on a digital platform.
The legal profession has always been built on integrity,discipline and public trust. The BCI’s circular is therefore not a restriction on free speech but a reminder that freedom must be exercised with responsibility. If implemented sincerely these guidelines will help restore the dignity of court premises, promote ethical use of social media, and reinforce public confidence in the justice delivery system. It is hoped that every advocate will treat this circular as an opportunity to uphold the honour, credibility and noble traditions of the legal profession.
A.C. Vineeth Kumar
Kerala
