Supreme Court seeks responses from Centre, BCI on plea for advocates’ registry, social media code

Published 18 June 2026 · india

Nearly a month after Chief Justice of India () Surya Kant expressed concern over the growing number of lawyers possessing dubious degrees, the Supreme Court

Nearly a month after Chief Justice of India () 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: Surya Kant A Bench comprising 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 “ Digital Registry for the Legal Profession of India” (NDRLP), which would maintain a “Unique 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.