Digital Ethics & Social Media Conduct — At a Glance

Advocates, law students and interns are barred from creating or circulating reels, videos, memes or promotional posts depicting court premises, judicial proceedings, chambers or professional work in ways inconsistent with professional ethics. Live-streamed court proceedings cannot be clipped, edited, monetised or sensationalised. The circular prohibits AI-generated images, deepfakes, voice-cloned audio and face-swapped content falsely depicting judges, courts, advocates or litigants. It reaffirms that advocates cannot use social media for direct or indirect advertising or solicitation (citing Sections 7, 35 and 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Rule 36 of the BCI Rules), and that client confidentiality extends to internships, chamber work and drafting.

Mandatory sensitisation and orientation sessions, standalone undertakings from students at admission and before each internship, incorporation into internship and institutional policies, and compliance record-keeping. Mere circulation via a website, WhatsApp or email does not count as compliance.

Circulate the circular to all enrolled advocates and Bar Associations, and establish Digital Ethics Committees, nodal officers and complaint mechanisms. Institutions must appoint a “Social Media Ethics Nodal Officer” to handle complaints, preserve evidence and refer repeat offenders — formalised institution by institution through Annexure C, the Stakeholder Declaration.

The circular introduces Annexure C (Stakeholder Declaration) for institutions adopting the circular, and Annexure F, a 12-point disclosure and disclaimer format for individual legal content creators requiring AI-use disclosure and record retention. Violations are classified into minor, serious and aggravated tiers, with a proportionate response. The BCI stresses implementation must stay “educative, preventive and proportionate” — not used for personal rivalry or moral policing.

The circular references Anil Pandey v. Bar Council of India (W.P.(C) No. 817 of 2026, Supreme Court notice 14 July 2026) and earlier precedents including Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, on the proper, non-sensationalised use of live-streamed court proceedings.