The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, July 15, 2026, issued notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI) on a PIL seeking strict regulation of advocates’ use of social media for advertising, client solicitation, and promotional activities — a challenge to a practice now proliferating across Instagram, YouTube, and Facebook.
The notice was issued by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana, according to LiveLaw. The matter is listed as returnable on September 15, 2026.
Background: How We Got Here
The PIL was filed as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 817/2026, titled Anil Pandey and Anr. v. Bar Council of India, by advocates Anil Pandey and A.R. Tripathi under Article 32 of the Constitution, as reported by LiveLaw and ProKerala.
Before approaching the Court, the petitioners submitted a representation on July 2, 2026 to the CJI and the BCI Chairman seeking immediate regulatory intervention. No effective nationwide framework was evolved in response, according to LiveLaw.
- The petition cites the Madras High Court’s July 3, 2024 judgment, which ruled against lawyer rankings and digital solicitation, as a precedent for regulatory action at the national level.
- The BCI had issued a March 17, 2025 advisory warning of disciplinary action against advocates engaging in promotional activities through influencers and celebrities, per LiveLaw and ProKerala.
- The Supreme Court Bar Association had also separately passed a resolution prohibiting videography and creation of reels within Supreme Court premises, according to LiveLaw.
The Ruling — Key Findings
The bench passed a short but significant order on July 15, 2026. No interim directions or orders on merits were passed at this stage; the Court has merely issued notice and awaits the BCI’s response, as confirmed by LiveLaw.
The bench’s direction, as quoted in the court order, was unambiguous: “Issue notice, returnable on 15.09.2026.” — Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
The petition seeks directions to the BCI to frame and enforce a comprehensive regulatory framework governing advocates’ conduct on digital platforms, and to strictly implement the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules, per Morung Express and LiveLaw.
Specifically, the petition targets conduct the petitioners allege amounts to indirect solicitation prohibited under Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules. It also seeks disciplinary action under Section 35 of the Advocates Act against violators, according to LiveLaw.
The petition further seeks formulation of Digital Ethics Guidelines and a Code of Digital Professional Conduct for advocates, to be framed under Section 49 of the Advocates Act — the BCI’s rule-making provision.
On the question of what constitutes impermissible promotion, the petition argues: “The true test is the substance and dominant purpose of the communication.”
The plea also targets the wearing of court attire in promotional content, stating in the petition: “Court attire is an institutional symbol representing the majesty of law and the dignity of judicial proceedings.”
Additionally, the petitioners seek a nationwide prohibition on creation of promotional digital content within court premises and the constitution of a National Expert Committee on Digital Ethics in the Legal Profession, as reported by LiveLaw.
Reactions & What’s Next
No formal response from the Bar Council of India has been reported at this stage. The Court has not expressed any view on the merits of the petition, and no interim relief has been granted, per LiveLaw.
The petition is part of a broader regulatory trend. A separate petition by the Bar Association of India for a National Digital Registry for the Legal Profession of India and a social media code of conduct had previously been admitted by the Supreme Court, according to the pre-verified sources.
The BCI is expected to file its reply before the next date. The matter will be heard again on September 15, 2026, when the court will consider whether further directions are warranted.
Disclaimer
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws may change or vary by case — consult a qualified lawyer before acting. The Courtroom is not liable for any reliance on this content.
