Sensationalisation Of Courtroom Proceedings: BCI Cracks Down On Use Social Media In Courts, Issues List Of Do's And Don'ts

New Delhi: The Bar Council of India (BCI) on Friday issued a circular  to govern the use of social media and curb the sensationalisation of courtroom proceedings by lawyers, law students, educators and interns during court proceedings.

The circular, which aims to maintain dignity, restraint and professional ethics in court, is against the making of sensational reels or disparaging social media content on court premises. 

The BCI has stated that every candidate seeking enrolment as an advocate may be required, as part of the enrolment record and orientation process, to execute a separate sworn affidavit acknowledging the standards of professional conduct relating to social media, digital platforms, confidentiality, court dignity, data privacy and AI/synthetic content.

According to the circular, all advocates are advised and called upon to refrain from:

1. making reels, videos, photographs or promotional content inside Court premises, courtrooms, corridors, Bar rooms, chambers or judicial buildings in a manner inconsistent with dignity and decorum, using bands, gowns or robes for public display, reels, posts, promotional photographs or social media performance in a manner inconsistent with Rule 5 and Rule 7 of Section 1, Chapter II, Part VI, which require prescribed dress in Court and prohibit wearing bands or gown in public places except on ceremonial occasions and at such places as the Bar Council of India or the Court may prescribe
2. recording physical, virtual or hybrid Court proceedings, unless they are subject to applicable court rules, and in the absence of court rules, with written approval of the Court/ Registrar General, and are as per the guidelines of this circular
3. clipping, editing or circulating live-streamed proceedings with captions, music, commentary, thumbnails or voiceovers which. ridicule, mock, distort, sensationalise or scandalise the conduct of Judges, counsel, litigants or witnesses;
4. using Court buildings, Court names, Court signage, robes, bands, briefs, cause lists, files, client documents or chamber settings as props for personal publicity or social media branding
5. publishing content that amounts to direct or indirect advertising, solicitation, client-attraction, projection of special influence, or commercial self-promotion
6. disclosing confidential information relating to clients, cases, chambers, colleagues, seniors, court strategy, settlement discussions, opinions, pleadings, drafts or privileged communications
7. permitting interns, juniors, associates, clerks, staff or social media handlers to publish content from chambers, offices or Court premises which the Advocate himself/herself is not permitted to publish
8. commenting on pending matters in a manner that may prejudice proceedings, influence public perception, embarrass parties or counsel, or lower the dignity of the Court;
9. using anonymous, pseudonymous or proxy accounts to do indirectly what professional ethics prohibits directly
10. creating, uploading, forwarding, reposting, circulating, monetising or Dusing Al generated images, deepfake videos, voice cloned audio, face swapped visuals, synthetic avatars, manipulated screenshots or other synthetic content depicting or purporting to depict any Judge, Court, Tribunal, counsel, litigant, witness, victim, client, Court officer, Court proceeding, chamber discussion or professional interaction
11. using the robe, band, Court corridors, Court premises, cause lists, briefs, chamber files, client documents, senior chambers, law firm spaces, internship access or the identity of being a lawyer as a prop for glamourised, sensational, suggestive, misleading, mocking, commercial or follower seeking social media content
12. publishing dressing, lifestyle, fashion, relationship, luxury or personality based videos in a manner which deliberately links such content with the status of being an Advocate, officer of the Court, intern in a chamber, law student in Court, or participant in Court proceedings, where the effect is to trivialise the profession, solicit attention through professional identity, imply special access to Courts or clients, or lower the dignity of the Bar
13. publishing or circulating fake judgments, fabricated citations, altered orders, manipulated cause lists, fictitious hearing narratives, false claims of appearance, false claims of success, fabricated client testimonials or edited material which creates a misleading impression of professional achievement, Court outcome or legal position
14. using clickbait, fear based marketing or outcome guarantees, including expressions such as guaranteed bail, divorce in a few days, sure acquittal, assured stay, instant relief or similar claims which mislead the public or commodify legal remedies
15. purchasing fake followers, fake engagement, fabricated reviews, fabricated testimonials, bot driven amplification or paid undisclosed promotion to create a false impression of professional credibility, public trust, success rate or standing at the Bar
16. failing to disclose, where material, the use of Al tools to generate or substantially modify images, videos, voiceovers, posters, avatars, captions, legal summaries or other content relating to Courts, Judges, Advocates, litigants, clients, proceedings or legal rights
17. creating content which states or implies that the creator was personally present in Court, personally argued a matter, personally obtained a relief, or personally handled a client matter when such representation is false, exaggerated, Al generated or otherwise misleading
18. disclosing case numbers, bail orders, orders in sensitive matters, pleadings, medical papers, identity documents, photographs, contact details, chat records, settlement communications or other client or litigant material in a manner which compromises confidentiality, privacy, privilege, safety, dignity or the administration of justice.

Positive Use Of Social Media Not Prohibited

The BCI has also emphasised that social media can be used in court for making content used for legal awareness and academic discourse. It clarified that the circular is not intended to discourage:

1. responsible legal awareness
2. academic discussion of judgments
3. accurate legal reporting
4. public legal education
5. constitutional literacy
6. neutral case-law updates
7. academic lectures, articles or seminars
8. responsible use of official Court information
9. respectful discussion of legal principles arising from judgments and orders
10. short-form legal education, including reels, shorts, brief videos, carousels, posts, threads, podcast clips or similar condensed digital formats, provided such content is accurate, contextual, non-soliciting, non-confidential, non-sensational, and does not convert complex legal questions into misleading outcome assurances

What Kind Of Content Is Prohibited?

According to BCI's circular, the “line is crossed” when the content becomes:

1. promotional
2. sensational
3. misleading
4. mocking
5. defamatory
6. scandalising
7. contemptuous
8. commercially exploitative
9. violative of confidentiality
10. violative of Court rules, live-streaming rules or video-conferencing
    rules
11. inconsistent with the dignity of the profession
12. unsupported by statutory provisions, rules, notifications, circulars or judicial precedents where the content purports to explain a specific legal right, remedy, procedure, offence, limitation period, bail standard, matrimonial remedy, consumer remedy, property remedy or other legal consequence
13. based upon fabricated judgments, fake citations, unverified screenshots, misleading excerpts, AI generated or otherwise non-existent case law, anonymous rumours or distorted summaries of Court proceedings.

Ruckus In Supreme Court

The BCI's crackdown comes just days after a video of ruckus inside the Supreme Court went viral on social media. In the video, a petitioner named Prabal Pratap called Supreme Court judges “servant" and ordered them to pass an order, saying, “Mr. Judicial servant, I order you to order the registration of an FIR against ACP Vikas Nagar, Lucknow, and Duplex Technology…because I am the sovereign.”

Shocked by the petitioner's command, Justice KV Viswanathan was purportedly heard asking, “You are ordering me? You are ordering us?”

Pratap also hurled papers at the Bench. Rushing through his speech, he said, “That is all from my side. Everything is on record.” He added, “These are the papers I have,” and hurled the bunch of papers towards the Bench in a dramatic gesture.

He further told the judges to pass the papers to the Chief Justice of India (CJI). He also hurled abuses at the CJI. His unparliamentary actions prompted security personnel to intervene and escort his out of the court.

Also Read- 'Merciless! Drop 'Doctor' From Your Name': Supreme Court Raps Ghaziabad Hospitals For Refusing To Treat 4-Year-Old Rape Victim