In the electrifying world of Netflix’s movie Do Patti (2024), one of the lead characters masterfully juggles dual identities, embodying both a relentless police officer and a shrewd advocate. This thrilling duality not only amplifies the drama but also captivates the audience with its sheer intensity. Yet, while such portrayals dazzle on screen, the real world is governed by stringent rules and ethical boundaries, particularly in the realm of professional roles like that of an Advocate.
The Supreme Court of India pronounced a judgment in the case of Mohd Kamran vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr, providing the latest clarification on the professional roles of advocates and the scope of their employment. In an oral observation, the Supreme Court went on to declare that a practicing advocate cannot simultaneously work as a journalist, reiterating the unique set of ethics attached to the legal profession. This case has attracted significant attention because of the implications for the legal community and individuals interested in both fields, journalism and law.
The key legal issue in this case involves the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules on the conduct of advocates. These rules are fundamental to maintaining dignity, ethics, and integrity within the legal profession. As a statutory authority, the BCI regulates the practice of law, ensuring that advocates uphold high ethical standards.
Rule 47 of the BCI Rules explicitly prohibits advocates from engaging in any other profession or employment that conflicts with their duties.
This issue was brought before the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Kamran, who was involved in a criminal defamation case against sportsperson Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. Kamran’s dual roles as a lawyer and freelance journalist raised questions about the legality of holding dual professions.
The Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih expressed concerns about Mohd. Kamran’s dual professions. They observed that his simultaneous engagement in legal practice and journalism directly contravened the Bar Council of India’s regulations.
The Court highlighted the incompatibility of these two professions, noting that a lawyer’s journalistic activities could breach client confidentiality or compromise impartiality. This ruling accentuates the ethical concerns of lawyers practicing other professions, particularly journalism. A fundamental principle of the legal profession is the duty of confidentiality owed to clients, ensuring no breach of trust.
The potential conflict is clear: a lawyer who is also a journalist might inadvertently reveal client information or appear biased. The Supreme Court’s ruling aims to prevent such ethical dilemmas by prohibiting advocates from engaging in journalism.
While rejecting the pleas for adopting dual roles, the Court issued a fresh notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI) seeking its response on the issue. This indicates that the Court may want to clarify or amend the existing provisions to eliminate future confusion.
Although the Court’s observation was oral, it still assumes significance. The judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court reminds the legal fraternity that BCI’s rules must be rigidly complied with and that legal professionals must respect the demarcations of their respective domains. Advocates who wish to pursue journalism must choose between legal practice and journalisms, not both.
The Supreme Court’s judgment highlights the necessity for advocates to refrain from engaging in journalism alongside their legal practice. According to the Bar Council of India rules, such dual roles are prohibited, and the Court’s observations reinforce the need for advocates to fully commit to their legal duties.
In the evolving landscape of legal practice, sustaining the profession’s nobility is paramount. The Supreme Court’s judgment serves as a touching reminder that the legal profession demands unwavering ethics and commitment. While fictional portrayals like Do Patti explore the allure of dual identities, real-life professionals must respect the stringent boundaries set by their fields.
The judgment reinforces that advocates who wish to explore journalism or other professions must make a definitive choice. The demarcations of the legal profession are not just guidelines, but principles rooted in maintaining trust and integrity. Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s ruling brings an absolute clarity that dual roles are reserved for the silver screen only.
Authors: Nevil Chopra & Aayushi Udani