The Bar Council of India (BCI) recently reiterated its stand in the Supreme Court that a practicing advocate cannot at the same time work as a journalist or in any other profession. The landmark case arises out of a petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, challenging the bar placed on him by rule 47 of the Bar Council of India Rules. The rule governing the professional conduct of advocates prohibits attorneys from having other employment or profession while they practice the law.The Core Problem He further argued that the prohibition impinges on fundamental rights, specifically Article 19(1)(a) relating to freedom of speech and expression, and Article 19(1)(g) relating to the right to practice any profession. According to him, practicing law and journalism are complementary professions in nature as both require dissemination of information and intellectual discourse. According to him, such prohibitions may prevent advocates from making contributions towards public awareness and policy debates. Whereas, the BCI argued that such a restriction has to be maintained for the purposes of preserving the sanctity and ethics of the legal profession. According to the BCI, allowing advocates to practice or work in other professions also, like journalism, shall lead to conflict of interests, dilute professional independence, and debase dignity of the legal profession also. Bar Council of India's Submissions It submitted that: Whole-time commitment by Advocates: Advocacy cannot be a part-time profession. Dual professions would only be a matter of divided loyalty, and clients' interest is also adversely affected. Conflict of Interest: Journalism encompasses the divulging of confidential information, which could present a conflict of professional obligation and journalistic function. Professional Ethics: The rule aims at preventing the advocates from doing anything which may run the risk of bringing damage to the decorum and the impartiality of the legal profession. Judicial Observations At this very hearing, the Court while highlighting the need to sustain and maintain dignity of this professional profession yet recognized that individual's right of freedom is to be well-balanced with duties required of professions. "The 'noble profession', a journalism may be indeed so, yet it was based on other ethical constructs entirely different from professional responsibilities assumed by an advocate. It now progresses further and discusses the balance which exists between professional integrity and constitutional freedoms. Therefore, how the Supreme Court is deciding on this very matter not only will resolve the matter of the ambit of Rule 47 but set another precedence when it comes to professions before a professional for an advocate. But till then the BCI stand does endorse that preservation of the very framework for ethics of professionals within legal profession in India stays unrelenting.