Should Advocates be Permitted to Advertise and Take Up Alternative Work?- An Insight into the Legislative, Judicial, and Current Approach

Must Read

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Explained: Constitutional Provisions and Legislations With Regards to a Person with Disabilities

The world celebrates December 3 as International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD). This day is also called World...

Follow us

In India, we consider the legal profession to be a noble profession. It is assessed by a standard of legal ethics that might seem outdated in today’s time. But, the Bar Council of India still maintains strict standards for lawyers.

Initially, the BCI rules had placed a complete ban on advertisements by lawyers. Although, in 2008, they made some relaxation. They allowed legal professionals to organize websites. It would specify their contact number, area of specialization, and qualifications.

In India, various indirect advertisements by lawyers have been taking place. This includes visiting cards, directory listings, seminars, and felicitation ceremonies, and many more.

What Rule is in place for the Advocates in India?

As per Rule 36 of the BCI rules, an advocate shall not solicit work or advertise. This includes both direct or indirect means. Further, his/her nameplate should be of a reasonable size. He/she should not state whether he has been the President or Member of the Bar Council. He/she also cannot state whether he was a Judge or Advocate General. Moreover, he/she should not show if he is associated with any person or organization in any way.

If an advocate violates Rule 36, then such advocates have to face the consequences. They will be liable for misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Section 35 of the said Act lays down the punishment for the misconduct of advocates. The misconduct can be professional or otherwise. Such an advocate shall be referred to the disciplinary committee. If found guilty, the BCI will suspend him/her for a definite time, or they will remove his/her name will from the State Advocates Roll.

Judicial Approach

The Judiciary has made significant contributions to upholding the dignity of the profession. In the case of R.N Sharma, Advocate v. State of Haryana, the Court held that an advocate is an officer of the Court. It was also observed that the legal profession is not a trade or business. Yet, the question is, what is an advertisement in the legal profession?

The case of Re: (Thirteen Advocates) v. Unknown speaks about lawyers publishing articles in newspapers. The Court held that the writer describing himself as a practicing lawyer is a cheap way of endorsing.

In the case of Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dadholkar, Justice Krishna Iyer made some observations. He stated that an advocate is not allowed to advertise for the betterment of the profession. He also stated law is not a trade and hence commercial competition should not vulgarize it.

These observations make one thing clear. The Courts too refrain the advocates from advertising themselves. They consider it to be for the betterment of the legal profession. The Courts are of the view that advertisements will lead to the downfall of the ethics of lawyers. Further, it will lead to jealousy amongst them and the exploitation of the public.

Does Rule 36 Seem Constitutionally Valid?

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees Freedom of Speech and Expression. In the case of Tata Yellow Pages v. MTNL, the SC made an important observation. It held that freedom of speech and expression extends to commercial speech. This includes advertising. Further, the SC maintained this stance in the case of Dharamvir Singh v. Vinod Mahajan. It held that the legal profession involves business proposition. Hence, advertising comes within it.

From the above analysis of the provisions and cases, it seems that Rule 36 is excessive in nature. It also seems quite unconstitutional.

Present Scenario

Advocates have faced the loss of income during the pandemic and the following lockdown. There have been reports of suicides and depression. Thus, a petitioner has filed a plea in the Supreme Court. It prayed that the BCI bring in changes to the BCI Rules by issuing modification of rules. It also prayed to initiate modifications under Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The recent death by suicide by a 35-year-old advocate indicates the situation of the advocates. Many advocates are going through a financial crunch due to the closure of Courts. The plea has put forth three suggestions to tackle the problem:

  • Allow advocates to be sleeping directors or sleeping partner. This will allow them to act as legal retainers or advisors.
  • Permit the use of advertisements and WhatsApp messages to take up chamber work. This includes income tax and GST assistance, trusts, including the filing of online cases.
  • Allow advocates to earn their livelihood by alternative means. Especially in view of the current situation. However, they will sign an undertaking that this will not continue after March 2021.


This is an era of promotion and advertisement. Yet, the BCI denies Indian lawyers the right to advertise. Yet, total relaxation on the same should not be there. Permitting advertisements might lead to advocates furnishing dishonest information. The advertisement may sway clients. They may base their decisions just on the advertisement. They will not take into consideration the fair evaluation and reputation of the advocates.

Another possible consequence is the shifting of their focus. Advocates will be more into publicizing themselves rather than improving their skills. This could affect the quality of the services. There are certain disadvantages. Though, we need to understand that indirect advertising takes place in this profession. But due to the ban, we are not able to enjoy the positives of the same.

In the author’s opinion, the BCI should not ban advertising per se. Instead, as long as it promotes legal awareness and gives a chance to the client to choose the right advocate, it should be permitted. The BCI should lay down rules related to this matter. This fulfills the need for advertising and keeping a check and regulating it. In this way, BCI would retain the regulatory role. This would further allow advocates to publicize their services. At the same time, clients could exercise their right to information. During this lockdown, the BCI should take into consideration the suggestions put forward. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -