In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of whether a practising advocate can simultaneously work as a full-time journalist. This question arose in the case of Mohd. Kamran v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., where the petitioner, an advocate working as a freelance journalist, sought to quash a defamation case. During the proceedings, the Court sought the opinion of the Bar Council of India (BCI) regarding the permissibility of practising law while engaging in full-time journalism.
The Bar Council of India (BCI), in its response, affirmed that an advocate cannot work as a full-time journalist, citing Rule 49 of the BCI Rules of Conduct, which restricts advocates from engaging in any profession that may conflict with their duties and responsibilities as legal professionals. BCI’s counsel reiterated that practising law and working as a full-time journalist are incompatible and violate the professional ethics that advocates must adhere to.
The petitioner, during the hearing, voluntarily undertook to refrain from working as a journalist, whether full-time or part-time. The Court noted this undertaking and recorded that the controversy surrounding the issue of dual profession had been resolved. As a result, the bench, led by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, directed that the matter be adjourned to February 2025 for the determination of the merits of the defamation case.
The Court further clarified that with the resolution of the controversy regarding the advocate-journalist dual profession issue, the presence of the BCI would no longer be required in future hearings related to the defamation case.
This ruling by the Supreme Court underscores the ethical boundaries within the legal profession, particularly in preventing conflicts of interest that might arise from an advocate engaging in another full-time profession. It reinforces the BCI’s stance on maintaining the dignity and professionalism of legal practice by limiting advocates’ involvement in other fields.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mohd. Kamran v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
Case Number: SLP(Crl.) No. 9615/2024
Lawcutor 