Recently, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of whether an advocate can engage in full-time journalism alongside practising law. The Court was hearing a petition filed by an advocate who also worked as a freelance journalist, seeking the quashing of a defamation case. The Bar Council of India (BCI) clarified that under Rule 49 of the BCI Rules of Conduct, a practising advocate is prohibited from working as a full-time journalist. The Court noted the petitioner's voluntary undertaking to refrain from journalism in any capacity.
In the case, the petitioner, who had been practising as an advocate while working as a freelance journalist, sought the quashing of a defamation case filed against him. The Court sought the BCI's stance on whether an advocate could simultaneously pursue full-time journalism.
The counsel for the Bar Council of India informed the Court that under the provisions of Rule 49, advocates are not allowed to work as full-time journalists. They clarified that it was not permissible for an advocate to practice law while being accredited as a journalist. The counsel for the petitioner, in response, stated that he would not engage in journalism, either full-time or part-time, and confirmed that he was solely focused on practising law.
The Court, in its observations, recorded the Bar Council of India’s stance that an advocate cannot engage in full-time journalism due to the professional rules governing legal practice. The Court further noted the petitioner’s voluntary undertaking to refrain from any involvement in journalism, ensuring that he would focus exclusively on his legal career. This voluntary undertaking was accepted by the Court, which stressed that this was a significant step in resolving the issue before it.
In its decision, the Court adjourned the matter to February 2025 for further determination on the merits of the defamation case.
Picture Source :
