BCI Bans Celebrity-Endorsed Legal Promotions; Issues Strict Warning on Social Media Solicitation by Advocates
Kiran Raj
The Bar Council of India has issued a stern directive condemning the growing trend of advocates advertising legal services through social media, promotional videos, and celebrity endorsements. The Council, exercising its statutory powers under the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules, has firmly stated that such practices are unethical and undermine the integrity of the legal profession. The Bar Council of India stated that “the profession of law, deeply rooted in public trust and ethical standards, is fundamentally distinct from commercial business ventures.” The Council has explicitly warned that deviations from these mandates will attract “severe disciplinary measures, including suspension or cancellation of enrollment, referral to the Supreme Court of India for contempt proceedings, and formal complaints to digital platforms for the removal of unethical content.”
The Council has also stressed its prohibition on the use of Bollywood actors, celebrities, and digital media platforms as promotional tools for legal services, in violation of Rule 36, Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules. Immediate withdrawal of such advertisements and cessation of misleading legal advice dissemination by unauthorized individuals were among the key directives issued.
Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Allahabad High Court’s Decision on Section 319 CrPC Summoning Order
The Bar Council has further mandated strict compliance from all advocates and digital platforms and affirmed that it remains resolute in protecting the dignity and nobility of the legal profession.
The Bar Council of India’s action follows increasing instances of professional misconduct by advocates and legal influencers who have turned to social media, influencer endorsements, and promotional platforms to market their services. The Council, in its detailed press release dated 17 March 2025, noted a concerning rise in the unethical practice of soliciting legal work via online advertisements and collaborations with celebrities and Bollywood actors, which the Council stated “clearly violate Rule 36, Chapter II, Part VI of the BCI Rules.”
The matter stems from a judicial pronouncement of the Madras High Court dated 03 July 2024 in Writ Petition Nos.31281 of 2019 and 31428 of 2019, where the Court stated that “advocacy is a noble profession, primarily driven by societal service rather than commercial motives.” The Court observed that the increasing reliance on promotional activities via online platforms severely compromises professional integrity and ethical standards.
Following this judgment, the Bar Council of India issued directions via Letter No.BCI:D:3417/2024 dated 06 July 2024, mandating all State Bar Councils to initiate immediate disciplinary action against advocates engaging in advertising or solicitation through online portals such as Quikr India Pvt. Ltd, Sulekha.com, New Media Pvt. Ltd, Just Dial Limited, and Grotal.com. The Madras High Court judgment categorically denied these online platforms any protection under the safe harbour provisions outlined in Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, noting that such platforms are actively facilitating activities that contravene the Advocates Act, 1961, and the BCI Rules.
The Bar Council of India has also made reference to the Supreme Court’s judgment in A. K. Balaji v. Union of India, 2018, which clarified that “individuals, associations, firms, companies, juridical persons, and even BPO companies, irrespective of their nomenclature and how they label their operations, are governed by the Advocates Act, 1961, and fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India if, in pith and substance, they engage in the practice of law.”
Additionally, the Council has recorded its concern regarding advocates leveraging religious, cultural, or public events for self-promotion through banners, stalls, and digital advertisements, stating that such actions “constitute unethical canvassing, infringing upon professional ethics and the dignity of legal practice.”
The Council also noted with alarm the surge in self-styled legal influencers who disseminate misleading legal content without appropriate qualifications. The BCI observed that such misinformation on complex legal issues, including matrimonial disputes, intellectual property rights, taxation, privacy laws, and citizenship matters, has contributed to public confusion and unnecessary judicial burden. The statement particularly pointed out incorrect interpretations of landmark decisions such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Right to Privacy ruling in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India.
The Council recalled that “legal practice is a noble service focused on justice, integrity, and fairness, and must not be commodified through commercial advertising or solicitation.” The Bar Council stressed the need for “advocates to uphold justice and public service, refraining entirely from commercializing their roles or services through distasteful or misleading advertisements.”
In its communication, the Bar Council of India referenced key judicial observations and regulatory mandates. The Council recorded that the Madras High Court judgment had “categorically emphasized that advocacy is a noble profession, primarily driven by societal service rather than commercial motives.” The Court stated that promotional activities through online platforms “severely compromise ethical standards and professional integrity.”
The Madras High Court also held that online platforms such as Quikr, Just Dial, and others “are violating the BCI Rules and the ethical standards of the legal profession” and denied them protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Court recorded that “such activities contravene the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules.”
The Bar Council highlighted the Supreme Court’s position from the A. K. Balaji judgment that “in pith and substance, entities engaged in the practice of law fall under the jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India, irrespective of their nomenclature.”
The Council also quoted Rule 36 of the BCI Rules in full, stating: “An advocate shall not solicit work or advertise, either directly or indirectly, whether by circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communications, interviews not warranted by personal relations, furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments or producing his photographs to be published in connection with cases in which he has been engaged or concerned.”
Further, the Bar Council stated that the rise of self-styled legal influencers “has compounded these ethical concerns,” resulting in “misleading interpretations of landmark judgments,” which in turn has “resulted in widespread confusion, misguided legal decisions, and undue judicial burden.”
In its press release, the Bar Council of India mandated the immediate withdrawal of all advertisements violating Rule 36, a prohibition on the use of Bollywood actors, celebrities, or influencers in promoting legal services, and the swift removal of banners and digital advertisements related to legal practice.
The Council ordered the “mandatory cessation of misleading and unauthorized legal advice dissemination by non-enrolled individuals” and an “absolute prohibition on the use of social media or digital platforms to directly or indirectly solicit legal work.” Digital platforms were instructed to establish “stringent vetting mechanisms for legal content and swift removal of misleading information.”
The Bar Council stated that any deviation from these instructions “will attract severe disciplinary measures, including suspension or cancellation of enrollment, referral to the Supreme Court of India for contempt proceedings, and formal complaints to digital platforms for the removal of unethical content.”
[Read/Download statement]
