Kerala Bar Council Cracks Down on 'Advertising' Advocate
By Manu Shrivastava
When the Bar Council of Kerala issued show-cause notices against advocates for their social-media escapades, it was not merely swatting at errant exuberance.
When the Bar Council of Kerala issued show-cause notices against advocates for their social-media escapades, it was not merely swatting at errant exuberance.
It was, in fact, reinforcing a nationwide campaign orchestrated by the Bar Council of India to discipline lawyers who, in its eyes, have strayed too far into the dangerous territory of branding.
 |
| For representational purpose only |
The cases in question, an AI-driven promotional video allegedly featuring Advocate Happymon Babu, and a celebratory reel by newly-enrolled Mohammed Fayiz that panned towards a High Court judge’s official car, appear innocuous to the lay eye.
But, to the regulatory mind, they reek of impropriety. A video becomes solicitation; a reel, solicitation’s cousin.
This rigidity draws its legitimacy from Rule 36 of the BCI Rules, the sacred clause outlawing advertisement by advocates.
This rigidity draws its legitimacy from Rule 36 of the BCI Rules, the sacred clause outlawing advertisement by advocates.
To the guardians of the Bar, the rationale is simple: once lawyers morph into influencers, justice risks appearing for sale. Clients may begin to “shop” for counsel not on merit but on trend, mistaking flamboyance for competence.
And yet, the counter-narrative is difficult to dismiss. Today’s young lawyers are digital natives. They build credibility online, not at dusty tea stalls outside courtrooms.
And yet, the counter-narrative is difficult to dismiss. Today’s young lawyers are digital natives. They build credibility online, not at dusty tea stalls outside courtrooms.
A modest announcement of enrolment, a factual website, a legal explainer reel - these are not acts of solicitation but tools of survival.
To criminalise visibility is, in effect, to entrench privilege. The already-established remain accessible by reputation, while the new entrant is silenced by regulation.
Kerala’s action does not stand alone. Earlier this year, the BCI thundered against celebrity tie-ups and influencer-style posts.
Kerala’s action does not stand alone. Earlier this year, the BCI thundered against celebrity tie-ups and influencer-style posts.
State councils from Delhi to Punjab have issued notices with uniform severity. The line is clear: preserve tradition, punish deviation.
But rigidity rarely outpaces reality. Outright bans are blunt instruments; nuanced regulation is the need of the hour.
But rigidity rarely outpaces reality. Outright bans are blunt instruments; nuanced regulation is the need of the hour.
Allow factual announcements, modest profiles, educational content with disclaimers; forbid endorsements, guarantees, theatrics, and misuse of judicial insignia.
Issue templates, set guidance notes, carve safe harbours. Without such calibration, every online presence becomes a potential breach, every young lawyer a prospective offender.
Kerala’s crackdown, then, is not a mere disciplinary skirmish.
Kerala’s crackdown, then, is not a mere disciplinary skirmish.
It is the frontline of a larger struggle: Can the Indian lawyer embrace the digital agora without losing dignity?
Until the Councils reconcile with the times, one warning looms - lawyers may log in, but they must not stand out.
