Supreme Court Issues Notice to BCI on PIL Seeking Regulation of Advocates’ Social Media Advertising and Digital Solicitation
In a matter with significant implications for legal ethics in the digital era, the Supreme Court has issued notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI) on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking strict regulation of advocates’ use of social media for advertising, client solicitation, promotional content, and influencer collaborations. The petition alleges that the growing trend of lawyers marketing their services through digital platforms violates the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules, which prohibit advocates from soliciting professional work through advertisements.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana. The Court sought the response of the BCI and directed it to file its reply by September 15, 2026, while keeping open the broader question of how professional ethics should be applied to the rapidly evolving landscape of social media and digital communication.
The PIL contends that platforms such as Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn are increasingly being used by some advocates to publish promotional reels, paid advertisements, client testimonials, influencer collaborations, and monetised legal content designed to attract clients. According to the petitioners, these practices amount to indirect solicitation prohibited under Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which bars advocates from advertising or canvassing for professional work either directly or indirectly.
Besides seeking stricter enforcement of existing professional conduct rules, the petition urges the Supreme Court to direct the BCI to frame a comprehensive Digital Ethics Code and Code of Digital Professional Conduct governing lawyers’ online activities. It also seeks disciplinary proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act against advocates found engaging in impermissible digital solicitation and requests a declaration that promotional social media content and the use of advocates’ robes and bands for publicity constitute professional misconduct.
The case comes at a time when the legal profession is witnessing a dramatic rise in online legal influencers and digital branding. While social media has become an important medium for public legal education, concerns have simultaneously grown over sensationalised legal content, misleading claims of expertise, publication of client-related material, and commercialisation of the profession. The petition argues that unchecked digital marketing risks eroding the dignity, independence, and public confidence traditionally associated with the legal profession.
Notably, shortly after the Supreme Court issued notice in the PIL, the Bar Council of India released a comprehensive set of Social Media and Digital Ethics Guidelines regulating the online conduct of advocates, law students, interns, and legal educators. The guidelines prohibit promotional reels, indirect client solicitation, unauthorised recording of court proceedings, misuse of advocates’ robes, disclosure of confidential information, and misleading AI-generated legal content, while permitting genuine legal education and academic discourse consistent with professional ethics.
The proceedings are expected to have far-reaching consequences for the future of legal practice in India. A final decision could clarify the extent to which traditional restrictions on advocate advertising apply to contemporary digital platforms and may shape the regulatory framework governing lawyers’ presence on social media. The case also highlights the broader challenge of balancing advocates’ freedom of expression and public legal awareness initiatives with the longstanding ethical principle that legal practice is a profession dedicated to the administration of justice rather than commercial promotion.
