New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to curb unethical digital solicitation and professional misconduct by advocates on social media platforms, alleging that influencer-style legal content and promotional activities are eroding the dignity of the legal profession.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice on the plea and made it returnable on September 15.
“Issue notice, returnable on 15.09.2026,” the CJI Kant-led Bench said in its order, while permitting “dasti, in addition”.
The PIL, filed by advocates Anil Pandey and A.R. Tripathi under Article 32 of the Constitution, has sought directions to the Bar Council of India (BCI) to frame and enforce a comprehensive regulatory framework governing advocates’ conduct on digital platforms and to ensure strict implementation of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules.
The plea contended that despite statutory safeguards prohibiting direct and indirect solicitation by advocates, there has been an “unprecedented proliferation” of promotional reels, influencer-style videos, monetised legal content and paid collaborations across social media platforms such as Instagram, YouTube and Facebook.
According to the petition, a substantial portion of such content is recorded inside court premises, corridors and waiting halls while advocates appear in full court attire, with videos frequently displaying contact details, claims of expertise, client testimonials and sensational legal commentary aimed at attracting prospective litigants.
“The petitioners seek this Hon’ble Court’s intervention against the rampant and unchecked proliferation of digital solicitation, the commercialisation of advocacy, and the flagrant misuse of judicial precincts by certain members of the Bar,” the plea stated.
It added that these activities “represent a systematic subversion of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules, thereby threatening the very dignity and integrity of the administration of justice.”
The petition argued that the prohibition against advertisement cannot be circumvented merely by portraying promotional content as legal awareness or educational videos.
“The prohibition against advertisement cannot be defeated merely by describing promotional content as ‘legal awareness’, ‘educational videos’ or ‘know your rights’ campaigns. The true test is the substance and dominant purpose of the communication,” the plea said.
“Where the primary object is self-promotion, acquisition of clientele or enhancement of commercial visibility, the activity constitutes professional misconduct irrespective of the terminology employed,” it added.
The petition further alleged that the use of advocates’ robes, bands and court premises for creating digital content amounts to a direct violation of the BCI Rules.
“Court attire is an institutional symbol representing the majesty of law and the dignity of judicial proceedings. It cannot be converted into an instrument of branding, publicity or commercial promotion,” the plea stated, adding that court premises “cannot be transformed into locations for social media content creation or influencer marketing”.
The petition claimed that social media algorithms increasingly reward sensational legal content through visibility, followers and monetisation, resulting in advocates competing on digital popularity instead of professional competence and integrity.
Referring to previous regulatory measures, the plea cited the Madras High Court’s July 3, 2024 judgment against lawyer rankings and digital solicitation, subsequent BCI press releases, the Bar Council of India’s March 17, 2025 advisory warning of disciplinary action against promotional activities through influencers and celebrities, and the Supreme Court Bar Association’s resolution prohibiting videography and creation of reels within the apex court premises.
The petitioners said they had submitted a detailed representation on July 2 to the CJI and the BCI Chairman seeking immediate regulatory intervention, but no effective nationwide framework has been evolved to address the issue.
(IANS)
