Supreme Court recently raised concerns about a practicing lawyer who was also working as a journalist, pointing out that Bar Council rules prohibit such dual roles. This issue came up in the case "Mohd Kamran vs State of Uttar Pradesh and anr," where Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih questioned the appellant, Mohd Kamran, on his dual professions.
Bar Council Rules and Dual Employment
Justice Oka highlighted the Bar Council of India rules, which prevent advocates from engaging in other employment while practicing law. He stressed that such a combination could lead to conflicts of interest, advising Kamran to choose between being a lawyer or a journalist.
"An advocate shall not be a permanent employee of any person, government or semi-government organization while continuing to practice as an advocate." - Bar Council of India Rules
The Supreme Court has asked the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council and the Bar Council of India to provide their responses on the appropriate action to be taken against Kamran for potentially violating these rules.
Background of the Case
This case is connected to an appeal against an Allahabad High Court order that dismissed criminal defamation proceedings against former parliamentarian Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. Singh had written letters to the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister and Chief Secretary in September 2022, claiming that Kamran had various criminal cases pending against him.
Kamran argued that Singh called him a conspirator and thief, and spread this information on social media and in newspapers to damage his reputation.
Related Legal Proceedings
Additionally, Singh is facing separate charges of sexual harassment brought by six Indian wrestlers. On June 15, 2023, police filed a chargesheet against Singh for offenses including:
- Outraging modesty
- Making sexually colored remarks
- Stalking
- Criminal intimidation
- Various sections under the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
The wrestlers had earlier sought the Supreme Court's intervention to ensure an FIR was registered against Singh, which the Delhi Police confirmed was done, with the investigation ongoing.
POCSO Act Implications
In a related case, a minor wrestler also accused Singh of similar misconduct but later withdrew her complaint, leading to a cancellation report under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
Throughout these legal challenges, Singh has pleaded not guilty.
Professional Conduct Implications
This case highlights the importance of professional conduct rules and the complications that can arise when someone tries to work in two roles that may conflict with each other. The legal profession requires undivided loyalty and dedication, which can be compromised when an advocate takes on additional employment.
Regulatory Framework
The Bar Council of India Rules are designed to maintain the integrity and independence of the legal profession. These rules ensure that advocates remain committed solely to their legal practice and do not engage in activities that could compromise their professional judgment or create conflicts of interest.
Precedents and Legal Precedence
Previous Supreme Court judgments have consistently upheld the principle that advocates must maintain professional exclusivity. The court has emphasized that the legal profession is not just a means of livelihood but a noble profession that serves the cause of justice.