Mathews J. Nedumpara
20th July 2026
98205 35428
Bar Council of India Circular on Social Media: A Grave Threat to the Freedom of Speech of the Bar
I was shocked to come across the Bar Council of India’s Circular dated 17.07.2026, captioned “Maintenance of Dignity, Restraint and Professional Ethics in the Use of Social Media by Advocates, Law Students and Interns,” dealing with the making of reels, videos, sensational clips, or disparaging social media content relating to court premises, court proceedings, judges’ chambers, judicial hearings, live-streamed proceedings, and professional work, besides requiring mandatory affidavits and disclaimers.
2.The Circular runs into 27 pages, excluding the annexures. I am utterly at a loss to understand what prompted the Bar Council of India, as if out of the blue, to issue such an elaborate and sweeping Circular.
3.It appears that a so-called Public Interest Litigation was instituted before the Supreme Court by one Anil Pandey. The matter came to be entertained on 14.07.2026, and notice was issued to the Bar Council of India. The Circular appears to be a reaction to those proceedings. The Bar Council responded within just three days of the issuance of notice, as though the heavens would fall if it failed to do so.
In my respectful view, the Circular is nothing short of censorship. It is a sweeping directive to the legal profession, issued by the very body that is expected to represent and protect the independence of the Bar. Instead of defending the freedom of advocates, the Bar Council has chosen to impose extensive restraints upon them. The inevitable consequence is a serious impairment of the freedom of speech and expression of advocates.
4.The need for such a Circular is wholly unexplained. What was the mischief sought to be remedied? What was the urgency? Why was such a far-reaching Circular issued without any meaningful consultation with the Bar? These are questions that remain unanswered.
5.We live in a constitutional democracy where freedom of speech and expression is among the most cherished of all fundamental rights. Freedom of speech does not belong exclusively to those who possess impeccable English, polished advocacy, or superior linguistic skills. It is not the privilege of the elite. It belongs equally to every citizen, irrespective of education, social standing, or ability of expression. Every citizen is entitled to express his or her views, subject only to the reasonable restrictions recognized by the Constitution, such as those in the interests of defamation, public order, and the other constitutionally permissible limitations.
6.On reading the Circular, I cannot help but form the impression that it is a response to the increasing public scrutiny of court proceedings made possible through video recording and live-streaming. For decades, instances of discourtesy, arrogance, and even humiliation of lawyers and litigants by judges remained confined within the courtroom. Except on rare occasions, such incidents never entered the public domain. There was seldom any evidence. Hardly any advocate would risk his or her professional future by filing an affidavit in support of another lawyer or litigant alleging ill-treatment at the hands of the court.
7.Video recording and live-streaming have changed that reality. They have brought the functioning of the courts into the public domain. Members of the public can now witness court proceedings for themselves. On several occasions, judicial conduct that would otherwise have remained unknown has attracted widespread public attention and criticism. Public debate, however uncomfortable, is an inevitable consequence of transparency.
8.It is difficult to avoid the impression that the present Circular is intended to discourage such criticism by imposing sweeping restrictions on advocates’ use of social media. Young advocates are now expected to furnish undertakings regarding what they may or may not publish. Such restrictions are ex facie unconstitutional.
Equally disturbing is the manner in which this Circular has been issued. It spans 27 pages of closely printed text. If a regulatory measure cannot be communicated clearly within a few pages, it is unlikely to be understood by those expected to comply with it. The law must be clear, concise, and intelligible. A document of such extraordinary length and complexity is unlikely to promote either compliance or confidence.
9.Most importantly, no prior consultation appears to have been held with the Bar. Thousands of advocates across the country actively use social media for professional education, public awareness, and discussions concerning the administration of justice. I myself am actively engaged in such efforts through the National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, which has built a substantial nationwide network of lawyers and public-spirited citizens. Yet no notice was issued, no consultation took place, and no opportunity was afforded to the Bar to express its views before the issuance of this far-reaching Circular.
A measure that substantially affects the freedom of expression of the legal profession ought not to have been introduced without transparency, consultation, and compelling justification. This Circular is ex facie unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, and has been issued behind the back of the members of the Bar.
10.To err is human. To realize one’s error, and openly acknowledge and rectify it, requires humility, character, and courage. I am sure the Bar Council of India will realize that it has erred seriously and has caused irreparable damage to its own credibility and status as the premier statutory body duty-bound to protect the very freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution.