Nearly a month after Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant expressed concern over the growing number of lawyers possessing dubious degrees, the Supreme Court on Thursday (June 18, 2026) sought responses from the Central government, the Bar Council of India (BCI), State Bar Councils, and the University Grants Commission (UGC) on a plea seeking the creation of an “authoritative national database” of enrolled advocates and a code of conduct governing lawyers’ use of social media and digital platforms.

The petition, filed by the Bar Association of India (BAI), said these “structural crises” in the governance of the legal profession have previously been acknowledged by the apex court and the BCI.

Also Read | Youth are pillars of country, remarks aimed at those with ‘fake’ degrees: CJI Surya Kant

A Bench comprising CJI Kant and Justice V. Mohana described the proposals as “innovative”, but observed that any exercise to create a comprehensive national database would require the participation of law universities, which would be best placed to furnish records of bona fide law graduates.

“It appears to me that if any coordinated effort is to be made in this direction, you will have to implead the law universities, so that they can disclose details of all bona fide law graduates,” the Chief Justice said.

Appearing for the bar body, advocate Prashant Kumar submitted that impleading all law universities at this stage could delay the reform process. He instead proposed placing on record a supplementary policy paper outlining how the proposed measures could be implemented.

‘No public national record’

The petition pointed out that while there are nearly 1.8 million enrolled advocates in the country, there is “no single, publicly verifiable, real-time national record” through which an advocate’s enrolment status and educational qualifications can be verified. It contended that advocate rolls are presently dispersed across 23 State Bar Councils and maintained without “uniform standards”, making it difficult for litigants, courts and other authorities to promptly verify credentials.

The court was also informed that a BCI report published in May estimated that nearly 35% of those practising before courts may be fake lawyers, while around 40% of advocates did not participate in its verification exercise.

To address this “regulatory vacuum”, the petition proposed the creation of a “National Digital Registry for the Legal Profession of India” (NDRLP), which would maintain a “Unique National Advocate Identifier” for every lawyer, along with details of enrolment status, verified educational qualifications, disciplinary history and a QR-code-enabled public profile that could be accessed by litigants “within seconds”.

“The technical model is India’s own Aadhaar system — demonstrably achievable at national scale. The implementing agency would be the Bar Council of India along with other respondents. Governance of the NDRLP would remain broadly with the Bar Council of India, while the Ministry of Law and Justice would serve as the funding and policy partner,” the plea stated.

‘Nasty comments’

On Thursday (June 18), Mr. Kumar also drew the court’s attention to the increasing instances of lawyers using social media in a manner that amounts to solicitation, in violation of the BCI Rules, as well as making public comments that undermine confidence in the administration of justice.

“The other issue concerns a digital code of conduct. When laypersons make comments, it is one thing. But when an advocate makes such remarks, it lends them a certain legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Some updating of the code of conduct is therefore required,” he submitted.

The Chief Justice remarked that genuine members of the Bar are generally mindful of professional ethics and conduct themselves responsibly, but acknowledged that “nasty comments” are frequently made by persons claiming to be lawyers.

“Advocates are normally very responsible. The first thing they learn is professional ethics. They will not indulge in such conduct. But nasty comments are made by people who have nothing to do with law. They are all backdoor entrants,” he said.

CJI Kant also pointed out that the remedy lay in mentoring young legal professionals and helping them find their footing in an increasingly competitive profession.

“...The best way is to strengthen the young members of the Bar and secure their place in the profession. Unless they are periodically trained, brought into the mainstream and given some space in the overcrowded courts, the problem will continue,” he said.

Observing that the views of stakeholders in the legal fraternity would be required before the matter could be considered further, the Chief Justice directed that it be listed for hearing in July.

‘Promotional reels’

The petition also pointed out that lawyers are increasingly posting “promotional reels” showcasing court appearances and professional engagements, lifestyle-oriented content, and “unverifiable claims of expertise and success rates” on social media platforms. It contended that such practices undermine a litigant’s ability to make an “informed and uncoerced choice of counsel”.

“The ordinary litigant — with no means of independently verifying an advocate’s actual credentials or standing, and with no recourse under the Consumer Protection Act, from which advocates are excluded — is induced to engage counsel on the basis of fabricated or exaggerated digital profiles,” the petition added.

Such conduct, the bar body said, erodes the “solemnity of courts” and reduces judicial proceedings to fodder for entertainment content. Accordingly, it has sought a direction to the BCI to frame, within six months, a code of conduct for lawyers’ use of social media and digital platforms.