The Bar Council of India on Monday apprised the Supreme Court that Rule 49 of the BCI Rules of Conduct barred a practising lawyer from simultaneously working as a full-time journalist.
The Counsel appearing for BCI further informed the Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih that a person could not practice law and simultaneously be an accredited journalist.
The Apex Court had earlier sought BCI’s opinion on whether an advocate could work as a full-time journalist, while hearing a petition filed by Advocate Mohd Kamran, who was also working as a freelance journalist.
On July 29, the top court of the country had directed the BCI and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to examine the dual roles of Kamran as a practicing advocate and a state-accredited freelance journalist, and take necessary action in the matter.
The BCI filed its response today.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would not work as a journalist, whether full-time or part-time, and only practice law.
The top court of the country recorded in its order the BCI’s stand that a practicing advocate was not permitted to do full-time journalism. It further recorded the voluntary undertaking of the petitioner that he would only practice law in the future.
The matter was listed for hearing in February 2025 to determine the merits (regarding the defamation case).
The Apex Court noted that the presence of BCI was no longer required as the controversy was over now.
On November 29, the Supreme Court had said that it would decide whether it was permissible for a member of the Bar to simultaneously work as a journalist.
In its July order, the Apex Court had questioned Kamran’s dual roles and cited the BCI Rules on Professional Conduct and Etiquette, which prohibited practicing lawyers from engaging in other professions or businesses. Chapter II of the BCI Rules states that an advocate could not engage in business or full-time salaried employment.
Kamran referred to Section 51 of Chapter II of the BCI Rules, which permitted advocates to engage in journalism, lecturing and teaching, provided they did not engage in advertising and full-time employment. The petitioner contended that he was not employed by any media organisation and not receiving any salary, but was only writing articles.
Kamran had filed a defamation case against former BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh alleging that Singh wrote defamatory letters to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, accusing the lawyer of having serious criminal cases registered against him, while also being a state-accredited journalist.
The High Court quashed the defamation case on multiple grounds, including the lack of public dissemination of the letters, which were deemed confidential communications. Kamran moved the Apex Court challenging the High Court order.
The Apex Court had also issued notice in July on Kamran’s plea challenging the High Court’s dismissal of his defamation complaint against Singh.
The post appeared first on .
The Counsel appearing for BCI further informed the Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih that a person could not practice law and simultaneously be an accredited journalist.
The Apex Court had earlier sought BCI’s opinion on whether an advocate could work as a full-time journalist, while hearing a petition filed by Advocate Mohd Kamran, who was also working as a freelance journalist.
On July 29, the top court of the country had directed the BCI and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to examine the dual roles of Kamran as a practicing advocate and a state-accredited freelance journalist, and take necessary action in the matter.
The BCI filed its response today.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would not work as a journalist, whether full-time or part-time, and only practice law.
The top court of the country recorded in its order the BCI’s stand that a practicing advocate was not permitted to do full-time journalism. It further recorded the voluntary undertaking of the petitioner that he would only practice law in the future.
The matter was listed for hearing in February 2025 to determine the merits (regarding the defamation case).
The Apex Court noted that the presence of BCI was no longer required as the controversy was over now.
On November 29, the Supreme Court had said that it would decide whether it was permissible for a member of the Bar to simultaneously work as a journalist.
In its July order, the Apex Court had questioned Kamran’s dual roles and cited the BCI Rules on Professional Conduct and Etiquette, which prohibited practicing lawyers from engaging in other professions or businesses. Chapter II of the BCI Rules states that an advocate could not engage in business or full-time salaried employment.
Kamran referred to Section 51 of Chapter II of the BCI Rules, which permitted advocates to engage in journalism, lecturing and teaching, provided they did not engage in advertising and full-time employment. The petitioner contended that he was not employed by any media organisation and not receiving any salary, but was only writing articles.
Kamran had filed a defamation case against former BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh alleging that Singh wrote defamatory letters to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, accusing the lawyer of having serious criminal cases registered against him, while also being a state-accredited journalist.
The High Court quashed the defamation case on multiple grounds, including the lack of public dissemination of the letters, which were deemed confidential communications. Kamran moved the Apex Court challenging the High Court order.
The Apex Court had also issued notice in July on Kamran’s plea challenging the High Court’s dismissal of his defamation complaint against Singh.
The post appeared first on .