A lawyer rises to argue before the Supreme Court. A judge makes an observation during the hearing. Within minutes, a short clip appears on social media. By evening, television debates are in full swing, hashtags are trending, and millions of people have already formed opinions about a case that has not yet been decided.
This is no longer an occasional phenomenon. It is the new reality of the justice system.
Recognising this profound shift, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has issued one of its most significant regulatory directives in recent years. In a circular dated July 17, it has made it mandatory for every aspiring advocate seeking enrolment to file a binding affidavit undertaking that he or she will not misuse court proceedings, confidential client material, artificial intelligence tools, deepfakes or digital platforms in a manner that compromises the administration of justice.
On the face of it, the circular appears to be another professional compliance requirement. In reality, it represents something much larger. It is the legal profession’s acknowledgement that the courtroom is no longer a self-contained institution. Justice today unfolds simultaneously in two arenas—the courtroom itself and the vast, unpredictable world of digital media.
The BCI’s move is, therefore, less about paperwork than about responding to a technological revolution that has fundamentally altered how judicial proceedings are reported, consumed and interpreted.
WHY THE BCI ACTED NOW
The BCI circular does not identify any particular incident that prompted the new requirement. Yet, its timing is difficult to ignore.
Over the past year, courtroom proceedings have increasingly spilled into public discourse through livestreams, mobile recordings and social media clips. Exchanges that were once heard only by those present inside the courtroom now circulate within minutes across multiple digital platforms.
Recent controversy surrounding remarks attributed to the chief justice of India—which were widely reported as describing sections of the youth as “cockroaches” and “parasites”—illustrated just how quickly courtroom exchanges can become political flashpoints. Whether those remarks were later clarified, contextualised or expunged became almost irrelevant once fragments of the proceedings had spread across social media.
That episode was only one example of a larger trend.
Courtroom exchanges are routinely edited into short clips stripped of legal context. Nuanced arguments are reduced to provocative headlines. Material removed from official records often survives indefinitely online. Increasingly, legal proceedings are not merely reported—they are repackaged as digital content.
For institutions built on deliberation and due process, this presents an entirely new challenge.
THE TRANSPARENCY PARADOX
Ironically, this transformation has been driven partly by reforms initiated by the judiciary itself.
In Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that livestreaming court proceedings was a natural extension of the constitutional principle of open courts. Public access to judicial proceedings, the Court observed, strengthens transparency and public confidence in the justice system.
That vision was implemented more concretely in Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court of India (2022), where guidelines for livestreaming Constitution bench proceedings were laid down.
The objective was admirable. Courts were no longer to remain remote institutions accessible only to lawyers and litigants. Citizens, too, would be able to witness justice being administered. Yet, technology transformed that constitutional ideal in ways few anticipated.
Livestreams could now be clipped into seconds-long videos. Judicial observations could be detached from the broader context of lengthy hearings. Social media algorithms rewarded controversy rather than nuance.
In the process, transparency acquired an unintended consequence: courts became part of the digital attention economy. The BCI circular is, in many ways, an attempt to restore balance.
WHAT THE CIRCULAR ACTUALLY DOES
The directive introduces digital ethics at the very point of entry into the legal profession.
Every new advocate enrolling with a State Bar Council must undertake not to misuse confidential client information, court proceedings or chamber discussions; not to create or circulate fabricated legal material using artificial intelligence; not to employ deepfakes or manipulated digital content; and not to misuse digital platforms in ways that undermine the administration of justice.
It also reiterates that court proceedings are not content-generation opportunities. Recording or circulating proceedings outside the framework permitted by law could invite disciplinary consequences.
Significantly, the BCI has not required existing advocates to furnish similar affidavits. The obligation applies prospectively, indicating that the Council intends to embed digital ethics into the professional culture of future lawyers rather than retrospectively impose new conditions on those already practising.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CHANGES THE RULES
If social media created one challenge, artificial intelligence has created another altogether.
Generative AI can draft legal submissions, summarise judgments and assist legal research. Used responsibly, these technologies promise greater efficiency and wider access to justice.
But AI also carries unprecedented risks. Around the world, lawyers have already been embarrassed after filing legal briefs containing fictitious judicial precedents invented by AI systems. Deepfake technology can fabricate courtroom conversations. Voice-cloning software can create convincing audio recordings of individuals who never uttered the words attributed to them. What was once merely an ethical concern has now become a technological one.
For lawyers entrusted with confidential client information and sensitive judicial proceedings, the consequences of misuse are potentially devastating. Against this backdrop, the BCI’s insistence on responsible use of AI appears less an overreaction than an acknowledgement of a rapidly changing technological landscape.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCING ACT
Yet, the regulation inevitably raises another question: where should professional ethics end and restrictions on expression begin?
Indian constitutional jurisprudence has long recognised that freedom of speech and the administration of justice must coexist.
In Sahara India Real Estate Corp vs SEBI (2012), the Supreme Court accepted that excessive publicity could prejudice a fair trial and endorsed postponement orders in appropriate circumstances.
In R Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu (1994), the Court explored the delicate balance between press freedom and the right to privacy.
Later, in Justice KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017), privacy was elevated to the status of a fundamental right, reinforcing the obligation to protect sensitive personal information emerging from judicial proceedings.
Lawyers occupy a distinctive constitutional position within this framework. Unlike ordinary commentators, they are officers of the court and participants in the justice delivery system. Their public conduct inevitably carries professional consequences.
Even so, digital platforms have undeniably expanded legal awareness and public participation. Constitutional debates that were once confined to courtrooms and law journals now engage millions of citizens. Judicial accountability has, in many respects, been strengthened by greater public scrutiny.
The challenge lies in preserving these gains while preventing distortion.
PRIVACY IN THE AGE OF DEEPFAKES
Perhaps the strongest justification for the BCI’s intervention lies in the protection of privacy.
Court proceedings frequently involve victims of sexual offences, children, matrimonial disputes, adoption proceedings, commercial secrets and witness identities. Digital dissemination can expose individuals to irreversible harm.
Artificial intelligence magnifies these risks. Deepfakes can manipulate evidence. Synthetic voices can impersonate litigants. Fabricated videos can undermine public confidence in judicial proceedings.
Protecting courtroom confidentiality is, therefore, no longer merely a matter of professional etiquette. It has become essential to safeguarding the integrity of justice itself.
THE UNANSWERED QUESTION
Even so, the BCI’s circular leaves an important question unresolved. Why should newly enrolled advocates alone shoulder the burden of digital responsibility?
Much of the misleading legal content circulating online is produced not by lawyers, but by anonymous social media accounts, political activists, influencers, YouTubers and other digital content creators who remain outside the reach of professional regulation.
If misinformation about judicial proceedings is the concern, should responsibility not extend across the entire digital ecosystem?
By concentrating primarily on young advocates, the BCI risks creating an additional layer of professional compliance while leaving untouched the larger sources of online distortion.
That does not diminish the importance of ethical obligations for lawyers. But meaningful regulation in the digital era cannot stop at the doors of the legal profession.
JUSTICE BEYOND THE COURTROOM
The BCI’s circular reflects a legal establishment confronting one of the defining challenges of the twenty-first century.
The courtroom is no longer merely a place where judges hear arguments and pronounce verdicts. It is also a space where proceedings are livestreamed, clipped into viral videos, debated on social media, interpreted by influencers and, increasingly, processed by artificial intelligence.
The answer cannot lie in retreating from transparency. Open courts remain a constitutional commitment and an essential safeguard of democracy.
Nor can the legal profession ignore the ethical vacuum created by rapidly evolving digital technologies.
What is needed is a balanced framework—one that distinguishes genuine public engagement from deliberate manipulation; that equips young lawyers with digital literacy rather than merely imposing compliance; and that recognises accountability as a responsibility shared by lawyers, litigants, technology platforms and content creators alike.
The BCI has taken an important first step. But the larger conversation has only just begun. Justice today is delivered inside courtrooms. Its reputation, however, is increasingly decided outside them.
—The writer is a New Delhi-based journalist, lawyer and trained mediator
The post When The Courtroom Goes Viral appeared first on India Legal.