No Reels, No Selfies: SCBA Urges Ban on Lawyers’ Social Media Content in Court

Index of Headings

• Introduction
• The SCBA Resolution: A Call for Ethical Boundaries
• The Supreme Court's Swift Response: A Circular Enforcing the Ban
• Legal and Ethical Foundations: Why Reels and Selfies Are Problematic
• The Rise of "Legal Influencers": Examples and Controversies
• Broader Implications: Security and the Future of the Bar
• Reactions from the Legal Community
• Conclusion
• FAQs
   

Introduction

On September 1, 2025, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), the premier body representing advocates practicing in the apex court, passed a resolute resolution calling for a strict ban on videography, "reel-making," and other social media content creation within the Supreme Court premises. This move, detailed in a letter addressed to the Supreme Court's Secretary General, underscores a growing concern among legal professionals: the erosion of the institution's dignity due to unregulated digital antics by lawyers.

The resolution, which has since prompted swift action from the Supreme Court administration, highlights how activities like taking selfies, filming short videos for platforms such as Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts, and recording in court corridors not only undermine professional ethics but also pose security risks in high-security zones. As the legal fraternity grapples with this issue, it raises broader questions about the evolving role of technology in the legal profession, the balance between free expression and institutional sanctity, and the need for self-regulation in an era dominated by influencer culture.

The SCBA Resolution: A Call for Ethical Boundaries

The SCBA's letter, dated September 1, 2025, and made public articulates a clear stance against what its terms "unregulated videography and social media activities by lawyers." According to the document, such practices "erode the dignity of the institution" and constitute "indirect solicitation and advertisement," both of which are explicitly prohibited under the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules on professional conduct. Rule 36 of the BCI Rules, for instance, forbids advocates from soliciting work or advertising their services, emphasizing that the legal profession is a noble calling, not a commercial enterprise.

The resolution proposes a multi-pronged approach to enforce compliance. First, it recommends the issuance of explicit guidelines banning filming, recording, selfies, or reel creation in sensitive areas like courtrooms, corridors, lobbies, and high-security zones—unless prior permission is obtained from court authorities. To make these rules visible and enforceable, the SCBA suggests installing prominent signage throughout the court complex, serving as a constant reminder of the prohibitions.

Enforcement mechanisms are equally robust. The association advocates deputing police personnel for monitoring activities, a measure aimed at deterring violations in real-time. For offenders, a graduated disciplinary framework is outlined: initial warnings, followed by suspension of SCBA membership, and escalation to State Bar Councils for further action under the Advocates Act, 1961. This could include fines, professional reprimands, or even disbarment in severe cases.

Beyond punishment, the SCBA emphasizes proactive education. It proposes regular workshops and sensitization campaigns, led by senior bar members, to educate younger lawyers on the ethical pitfalls of social media use in court premises. The Executive Committee of the SCBA condemned these practices outright, stating that "such measures are essential to preserve the dignity and decorum of the Court." This resolution is not an isolated cry; it builds on similar concerns raised by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) in a letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai earlier in July 2025.

The SCAORA's missive, dated July 25, 2025, flagged the "rising trend of advocates creating video reels, engaging in videography, and producing related content within the Supreme Court premises, including in High Security Zones." It highlighted how these videos, often uploaded to platforms like Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter), frequently include disclaimers but still promote advocates by displaying contact details or subtle calls to action—amounting to impermissible solicitation. The letter warned of the erosion of public trust, misrepresentation of judicial proceedings (through edited snippets from live-streamed hearings), and security threats in sensitive areas. SCAORA urged the CJI to issue guidelines prohibiting such activities, enforce disciplinary measures, and restrict sharing of court footage outside official channels.

The Supreme Court's Swift Response: A Circular Enforcing the Ban

The SCBA's resolution did not languish in bureaucratic limbo. On September 10, 2025, the Supreme Court's Secretary General, Shekhar C. Munghate, issued a circular that effectively operationalized the ban, prohibiting photography, videography, and reel creation within the High Security Zone of the premises. This zone encompasses courtrooms, corridors, lobbies, and other critical areas, where the use of mobile phones for recording, cameras, tripods, selfie sticks, or any similar equipment is strictly forbidden, except for official purposes.

The circular, reported extensively by outlets like Bar and Bench, The Print, and The Hindu, empowers security personnel to disallow entry or restrict access to violators. It applies universally to advocates, litigants, interns, law clerks, staff, visitors, and even media personnel. For media, interviews and live broadcasts are permitted only in designated low-security areas, such as the media lawn adjacent to the outer gates. Violations by advocates or interns could lead to reports to their Bar Associations or State Bar Councils for disciplinary action, while media offenders face a one-month ban from the high-security zone.

Legal and Ethical Foundations: Why Reels and Selfies Are Problematic for the Judiciary’s Perspective

At the heart of this controversy lies a tension between modern digital expression and longstanding legal ethics. The Advocates Act, 1961, and BCI Rules frame the legal profession as one of service to justice, not self-promotion. Rule 36 explicitly bans advertising or soliciting work, a principle rooted in preventing commercialization that could compromise impartiality. As the Madras High Court observed in a January 2025 judgment, the legal profession in India is "unique" for its role in rights-based movements, where "truth and justice can never be traded." The court directed the BCI to initiate disciplinary proceedings against lawyers using Instagram Reels or LinkedIn profiles for indirect advertising, reinforcing that online branding often blurs into solicitation.

Photography and videography in courts have long been regulated to maintain decorum and security. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, capturing images of judges, witnesses, or parties in proceedings can constitute contempt, as it risks prejudicing trials or invading privacy. The Supreme Court's 2018 guidelines on high court security, echoed in the 2025 circular, prohibit such activities to prevent misuse of content that could reveal sensitive information or compromise witness safety. In high-security zones, where high-profile cases involving national security or VIP litigants are heard, unauthorized recording poses tangible risks— from doxxing to terrorist threats.

Moreover, these practices often lead to "trial by media" distortions, as seen in landmark cases like the 1993 Bombay blasts trial of Yakub Memon, where excessive media coverage pressured lawyers and prejudiced proceedings. The Press Council of India’s Norms of Journalistic Conduct (2010) advise against sensationalism in sub-judice matters, a principle that extends to lawyers' social media posts. The BCI's July 2024 cease-and-desist notices further prohibited direct or indirect solicitation online, yet enforcement remains challenging in the digital age.

The Rise of "Legal Influencers": Examples and Controversies

The proliferation of reels and selfies in courts reflects a broader "influencer culture" infiltrating the bar. Young lawyers, eager to build personal brands, post content glamorizing court appearances dramatic entrances in black robes, celebratory bail announcements with upbeat music, or "day in the life" vlogs. While some claim educational intent, critics argue they serve as surrogate ads, attracting clients through viral appeal.

Controversies abound. In July 2025, SCAORA cited instances of Advocates-on-Record incorporating live-streamed courtroom snippets into promotional videos, diminishing the profession's gravitas. The BCD's August 2025 advisory targeted "flashy reels" and self-congratulatory posts, warning of suspensions under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. A notable example is the 2024 backlash against lawyers posting about high-profile wins, like in the Kangana Ranaut tweet case, where social media hype overshadowed ethical restraint.

Earlier, in 2019, the Madras High Court in R. Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General addressed lawyer conduct, emphasizing self-regulation to protect independence from political or media pressures. Internationally, while U.S. and U.K. bars allow limited advertising with disclaimers, India's stricter norms stem from colonial-era ethics, now clashing with platforms like Instagram, where legal content garners millions of views.

These trends have sparked debates on free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Proponents argue that educational reels demystify law for the public, but as senior advocate Sunil Fernandes noted, "the line between awareness and promotion is blurred," risking misuse to stifle legitimate expression.

Broader Implications: Security and the Future of the Bar

The ban's implications extend beyond aesthetics. Security in the Supreme Court, a high-threat environment, is paramount. Unauthorized videos could inadvertently capture confidential discussions or identities, violating the right to privacy affirmed in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). As SCAORA warned, such content risks "eroding public trust" by portraying the court as a social media playground.

For younger lawyers, the resolution is a wake-up call. Workshops proposed by SCBA aim to bridge generational gaps, teaching ethical digital use. Yet, critics like advocate Saxena argue for rule updates, as "online presence is necessary for clients to search for lawyers." The BCI may need to revisit Rule 36 to accommodate transparent, non-soliciting content.

Globally, similar tensions exist. In the UK, contempt laws ban courtroom photography, while U.S. courts vary by jurisdiction. India's approach, blending tradition with enforcement, could set a precedent for other high courts and district courts facing similar issues.

Reactions from the Legal Community

The SCBA's move has elicited mixed responses. On X (formerly Twitter), LiveLawIndia's post on September 12, 2025, garnered over 3,000 views, with users debating ethics versus modernity. Senior lawyers applaud the ban for upholding dignity, while some juniors lament curtailed expression. Media outlets like Deccan Chronicle and Business Standard highlight the circular's role in curbing "reel culture," but question enforcement feasibility in a phone-pervasive world.

The SCAORA's earlier letter amplified these voices, with President Vipin Nair and Secretary Nikhil Jain emphasizing Advocates-on-Record's "heightened responsibility." No major backlash has emerged, but ongoing BCI consultations suggest evolving guidelines.

Conclusion

The SCBA's resolution and the Supreme Court's circular represent a pivotal moment in Indian legal history, a reaffirmation that the pursuit of justice demands decorum over virality. By banning reels and selfies, the bar seeks to reclaim its noble ethos, ensuring the Supreme Court remains a bastion of impartiality, not a backdrop for personal branding. As technology advances, the challenge lies in adapting ethics without compromising core values. Through education, enforcement, and dialogue, the legal profession can navigate this digital divide, safeguarding dignity for generations to come.

In an era where a single post can reach millions, these measures remind us that true influence in law stems from advocacy, not algorithms. The SCBA's initiative, supported by SCAORA and the court, paves the way for a more ethical bar—one where justice, not likes, is the ultimate currency.

FAQs

Q: What is the SCBA Resolution about?
A: The SCBA resolution (Sept 1, 2025) opposes lawyers’ videography and reel-making in court premises, calling it indirect solicitation barred under BCI Rule 36. It proposes bans, signage, police monitoring, disciplinary action, and sensitization programs to uphold the dignity and decorum of courts.

Q: What are the broader implications of the SCBA’s proposed ban?
A: Beyond decorum, the ban safeguards security and privacy in courts, addressing risks flagged in Puttaswamy (2017). It also pushes younger lawyers toward ethical digital practices, while sparking debate on whether BCI Rule 36 needs updating to balance tradition with today’s digital realities, much like global counterparts in the UK and U.S.

SUMMARIES

Supreme Court Bans Reels & Selfies
No more reels, vlogs or selfies inside India’s highest court.
The SCBA and Supreme Court say it erodes dignity & poses security risks.
But with influencer culture rising, should lawyers adapt or draw the line?