Back
Must Act Against Lawyers Speaking to Media on Own Cases: Justice Oka
Former judge Justice Abhay Oka has issued a strong call to the ) to take disciplinary action against lawyers who discuss their own ongoing cases in the media. Speaking at a discourse on , Justice Oka warned that such conduct may amount to and could violate the prohibiting advertising and . His remarks have ignited a critical debate on the boundaries of , media reporting, and the principles of in India.
Justice Oka made these observations at an event titled “Discourse on Ethics in Criminal Litigation, & Admissibility of Statements,” organised by the . He questioned why lawyers, immediately after sensitive hearings, appear before the media to explain their submissions and even host podcasts analysing judges’ questions. According to him, this practice risks creating a public perception that the court has already formed a final view, thereby undermining the integrity of judicial proceedings.
The Core Issue: or Professional Advocacy?
Justice Oka squarely addressed the tension between a lawyer’s duty to assist the court and the temptation to seek personal publicity. “Is it really correct to address the media on the submissions made in ongoing case?” he asked, noting that some lawyers go so far as to suggest that judges’ questions indicate their client is likely to win. He reminded the audience that “the duty of the lawyers is to argue to the best of their ability and assist the court as the officers of the court.”
He anchored his concerns in , which forbids advocates from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. The rule explicitly prohibits promotion through interviews, furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, and producing photographs for publication in connection with a case. Justice Oka argued that when a lawyer in an ongoing case gives an interview or seeks publication of their photograph, “I believe that this Rule will be attracted. You are soliciting the work, you are advertising your skills.”
While he acknowledged in a lighter vein that it was “difficult to believe that the Bar Council of India would act in such a manner,” he stressed that “they are the ones who have statutory power and they are expected to act.” This pointed remark places the under renewed pressure to enforce professional standards in the age of 24/7 news cycles and social media.
When Judicial Questions Become Headlines
Justice Oka also cautioned against the media’s tendency to treat judges’ questions during hearings as hints of a final verdict. He emphasised that judges often pose questions to seek clarification, test a submission, or indicate a view so that counsel can address it effectively. “A view is not necessarily the final view of the court,” he said, pointing to cases where judges expressed one view during arguments but later delivered a judgment taking the opposite view.
This observation is particularly relevant in the context of . While Justice Oka strongly supports and live-streaming, he warned that “media discussions based on can create a wrong impression” when judicial questions are misread as definitive rulings. The solution, he suggested, lies not in restricting access but in educating all stakeholders—including journalists and lawyers—about the nature of courtroom dialogue.
: A Violation of
One of the most striking aspects of Justice Oka’s speech was his unequivocal opposition to against the media. Referring to the ’s judgment in , he stated that courts cannot tell the media what to report or direct it to remove portions of a report. “Issuing against the media is not at all the solution. It will make the problem worse,” he said.
He argued that such orders violate and could be interpreted as suggesting that the court has something to hide. Instead, he championed the principle of : courts must remain open to public observation, debate, and constructive criticism. If a person commits contempt, the court can act under , but that is different from pre-emptively silencing the press. This nuanced position reinforces the delicate balance between protecting judicial processes and upholding free speech.
Beyond Lawyers: Police and Politicians Under Scrutiny
Justice Oka did not limit his critique to the legal profession. He also took aim at investigating officers and senior police officials who hold press conferences during ongoing investigations, disclosing witness statements, identification of accused persons, and the direction of the probe. Such disclosures, he warned, can prejudice the investigation, allow evidence to be destroyed or manipulated, and influence public opinion before a court has examined the evidence.
He further criticised political statements that an accused “would be hanged or punished” while a trial is pending. “The question whether an accused was guilty and the sentence to be imposed were matters for the court,” he asserted, with sentencing being “the exclusive province of the court.” He also flagged instances where public prosecutors reveal that they were personally requested by a Chief Minister or Home Minister to appear in a case—statements that “can send wrong signals about the justice delivery system.”
These remarks highlight a systemic problem: the extra-judicial commentary by multiple actors—lawyers, police, politicians, and prosecutors—can collectively shape public opinion and potentially prejudice a . Justice Oka noted that while there may not be a “” in the strict sense, the information provided by these stakeholders to the media often serves as its raw material.
The Path Forward: Education and Restraint
Justice Oka concluded on a hopeful note, calling for self-restraint by all stakeholders. “The real solution is educating all the stakeholders and restraint,” he said. He emphasised that objective and accurate media reporting is welcome and plays a vital role in a democratic society. The problem, he clarified, is not reporting itself but the selective, sensational, or incomplete dissemination of information that distorts public understanding.
For the legal community, Justice Oka’s speech serves as a timely reminder of the ethical obligations that accompany the privilege of practicing law. The Bar Council of India now faces an expectation to act—not just in words but in enforcement. Whether it will take concrete steps against errant lawyers remains to be seen, but the former judge has unmistakably drawn a line in the sand.
As the legal fraternity grapples with the pressures of media scrutiny and digital visibility, Justice Oka’s call for restraint and adherence to the rules offers a principled path forward—one that safeguards the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the public’s right to know.
