Supreme Court Seeks Responses on National Advocate Registry, Social Media Code for Lawyers

June 18, 2026 : The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notices to the Union Government, the Bar Council of India (BCI), all State Bar Councils, and the University Grants Commission (UGC) on a petition seeking the creation of a nationwide digital verification system for advocates and a regulatory framework governing lawyers’ conduct on social media platforms.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana directed the respondents to file their replies and scheduled the matter for further hearing in July.

The petition, filed by the Bar Association of India (BAI), seeks the establishment of a National Digital Registry for the Legal Profession of India (NDRLP), envisioned as a centralized database containing records of all enrolled advocates across the country. The proposed registry would provide every advocate with a unique national identification number, enable real-time verification of enrolment status, maintain disciplinary records, and offer QR-code-enabled public profiles to help courts, litigants, and government authorities instantly verify professional credentials.

The plea also seeks directions to the Bar Council of India to frame a binding social media and digital conduct code under Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The proposed framework would regulate online conduct by advocates, prohibit misleading promotional content and misrepresentation, and prescribe structured penalties for violations. Additionally, the petitioner has sought the introduction of a mandatory pre-enrolment online course on professional ethics and digital conduct for aspiring lawyers.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice observed that the proposal appeared to be technology-driven and practically implementable. However, the Bench emphasized that its successful execution would require coordination among State Bar Councils, law universities, and other stakeholders to ensure accurate verification of academic and enrolment records.

The Court also discussed the need to involve law universities in the verification process, particularly for validating academic qualifications. While the petitioner suggested that bringing all universities on record at the initial stage could slow down the proceedings, the Bench agreed that it would be more appropriate to first develop a workable framework before considering wider implementation across the country.

The Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to submit a supplementary policy note detailing the proposed mechanism. The Bench further indicated that an earlier committee constituted to examine issues related to advocate verification may require fresh consideration or reconstitution, noting that timely intervention in the past could have addressed many of the concerns raised in the present petition.

Referring to social media activity involving legal professionals, the Court noted instances of online content and remarks that appeared unrelated to legal discourse. The Chief Justice observed that some individuals making such statements may not even be enrolled advocates. At the same time, the Bench clarified that members of the legal profession generally adhere to professional ethics and that isolated instances of online misconduct should not be viewed as representative of the Bar as a whole.

The petitioner argued that advocates occupy a position of professional authority in public discourse and that their statements on digital platforms are perceived differently from those of ordinary users. It contended that this distinction necessitates appropriate regulatory safeguards.

Highlighting the scale of the issue, the petition stated that India has approximately 1.8 million enrolled advocates, but the current enrolment system remains fragmented among State Bar Councils without a unified, real-time verification mechanism. According to the petitioner, this lack of interoperability has created gaps that can facilitate fraudulent enrolments and undermine transparency.

The proposed National Digital Registry for the Legal Profession would integrate advocate enrolment records, disciplinary history, and qualification verification into a single digital platform. The system would also include law degree verification linked to the UGC and recognized law universities.

The petition further seeks the constitution of a monitoring committee, preferably headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, to oversee implementation and submit periodic compliance reports. It also raises concerns regarding certain social media practices by lawyers, alleging that promotional posts related to court appearances and professional branding may amount to solicitation prohibited under the Bar Council of India Rules.