Back
Asks to Decide Plea on Advocates' Personal Data
The has directed the (BCD) to decide a representation challenging the unrestricted public display of advocates’ personal information on its online “Enrolment Status” portal. The petition, filed by advocate , argues that making residential addresses, mobile numbers, dates of birth, and parents’ names freely accessible without any authentication violates the under .
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, while disposing of the writ petition, ordered that the plea be treated as a representation and decided by the BCD within eight weeks. The Court’s intervention comes at a time when data privacy concerns are gaining traction in India, with legal professionals themselves seeking protection from what they describe as an overbroad disclosure regime.
The Core Issue: Unfettered Access to Personal Details
The petitioner, , an advocate practicing in Delhi, filed WP(C) 12711/2026 alleging that the BCD’s enrolment verification portal allows anyone to view an advocate’s personal particulars simply by entering the enrolment number and year. Unlike many government databases that require a login, OTP, or CAPTCHA, the portal reportedly provides direct access to sensitive information. Chauhan contended that while the online facility serves a legitimate public purpose—verifying an advocate’s enrolment—the unrestricted disclosure of personal data goes far beyond what is necessary for such verification.
During the hearing, the bench questioned the BCD’s counsel on the necessity of making such details visible. “Why make it public?” the Court asked, signaling its unease with the current practice. The counsel for the BCD responded that, unlike electoral rolls, the details appear only when the enrolment number is entered, implying that the data is not searchable by name alone. The counsel also suggested that the petition could be treated as a representation, which the Court accepted.
Privacy vs. Transparency: The Legal Framework
The petition rests on a careful parsing of the . Section 17 requires State Bar Councils to prepare and maintain a roll containing the “names and addresses” of enrolled advocates. The petitioner argued that this provision does not authorise the collection or disclosure of mobile numbers, dates of birth, or parents’ names for the purpose of the roll. Section 19, which mandates transmitting an authenticated copy of the roll to the , does not contemplate unrestricted public disclosure, the petition added.
Beyond statutory interpretation, the plea invokes the that governs the . Even the disclosure of residential addresses through an unauthenticated public portal, it was argued, raises serious concerns under the established by the in . The petitioner contended that the BCD has not demonstrated any that justifies such sweeping disclosure, nor has it adopted the to achieve its objective.
Court’s Pragmatic Approach
Rather than adjudicating the merits of the petition outright, the division bench opted for a pragmatic route. By directing the BCD to treat the petition as a representation and decide it within eight weeks, the Court effectively gave the bar council an opportunity to review its own policy. This approach reflects a growing judicial tendency to allow regulatory bodies to self-correct before courts step in—a deference that may expedite resolution but also places the onus on the BCD to act in the spirit of the privacy jurisprudence.
Chief Justice Upadhyaya and Justice Karia did not, however, endorse the BCD’s current stance. Their pointed query—“Why make it public?”—suggests that the bench found merit in the petitioner’s concerns. If the BCD fails to address the issue adequately, the petitioner may well return to court with a fresh challenge, armed with the High Court’s implicit observations.
Implications for the Legal Profession
The case touches on a broader tension within the legal profession: the need for transparency in verifying credentials versus the right of advocates to shield sensitive personal information from public view. Lawyers, like all citizens, are entitled to privacy, and the fact that their enrolment numbers are publicly available does not automatically justify exposing their home addresses or phone numbers.
The outcome of this representation will have ramifications beyond the . Other state bar councils maintain similar portals, and the BCD’s decision could set a precedent. If the council decides to mask or remove certain fields, it may influence the design of enrolment verification systems nationwide. Conversely, a refusal to alter the current practice could spark further litigation, possibly reaching the .
Data Protection and the Digital Era
The petition also dovetails with India’s evolving data protection landscape. The , which awaits full implementation, emphasises and . Public authorities, including bar councils, may soon be required to justify any collection and disclosure of personal data under these principles. The High Court’s direction comes at a time when the judiciary is increasingly sensitive to privacy risks posed by digitised government services.
The BCD’s portal, designed for convenience, inadvertently created a vulnerability. Without authentication barriers, the personal details of thousands of advocates are accessible to anyone with an internet connection—a scenario that raises risks of harassment, identity theft, and unsolicited contact. The petitioner’s case highlights how even well-intentioned public services can infringe fundamental rights if not carefully calibrated.
Conclusion
The ’s decision to refer the matter back to the is a measured step that balances judicial oversight with institutional autonomy. By setting an eight-week deadline, the Court has nudged the BCD towards a policy review while reserving the petitioner’s right to seek further relief if the response is unsatisfactory. For the legal community, this case serves as a reminder that privacy is not merely a theoretical right but a practical safeguard that must be embedded in every digital platform. As the BCD deliberates, the eyes of the profession—and of data privacy advocates—will be watching closely.
