The ‘Dominant Purpose’ Test And Digital Touting: Redefining Rule 36 Of The BCI Rules In The Era Of Legal Influencers And Short-Form Media
Smriti Nikam & Satyam Kumar, University of Mumbai Law Academy
ABSTRACT
The rapid emergence of legal influencers and short-form digital media has fundamentally transformed the manner in which advocates engage with the public, challenging the traditional ethical boundaries governing the legal profession in India. Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, prohibits advocates from advertising or soliciting professional work, yet its application to algorithm-driven digital platforms remains uncertain. This paper examines the growing tension between an advocate's constitutional right to impart legal knowledge under Article 19(1)(a) and the professional obligation to refrain from commercial solicitation under the Advocates Act, 1961. Through an analysis of the contemporary regulatory landscape, including Anil Pandey v. Bar Council of India, the Madras High Court's intervention against online lawyer-ranking platforms, and Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji, the paper argues that the existing framework is ill- equipped to distinguish genuine public legal education from disguised client acquisition. It further evaluates the Bar Council of India's July 2026 Circular on digital conduct and identifies both its strengths and limitations. To address this regulatory uncertainty, the paper proposes a "Dominant Purpose" Test, under which digital legal content is assessed on the basis of its primary objective rather than its format. The paper concludes by advocating for a comprehensive Digital Ethics Code that preserves professional dignity while accommodating responsible legal education in the digital age.
Keywords: Bar Council of India, Circular, Legal Influencers, Legal Solicitation.
