Back
: Law College Must Remove Advocate Images from Banners, BCI Rules Prohibit Advertisements
In a significant ruling that underscores the ’s strict prohibition on individual advertisements by advocates, the has directed a law college to replace all promotional banners that feature the image of a person in an advocate’s attire. The order, passed by Justice B M Shyam Prasad, requires the institution to ensure that its banners focus solely on the law degree course and institutional details, without any emphasis on individuals.
Banners with Advocate Image Spark Dispute
The dispute arose when the Panchayat Development Officer of issued a communication on , calling upon the to remove buntings (banners) that displayed the image of a person. The Trust, which runs multiple educational institutions and had recently commenced a law degree course, had put up these banners to publicize the new programme. The Panchayat permitted banners but objected to ones carrying a person’s image, warning that failure to remove them would invite .
The Trust approached the High Court under , challenging the Panchayat’s directive. It argued that the banners were covered under an agreement with the Panchayat and that it was willing to remove any offensive part if specified.
Panchayat Notice vs. Educational Promotion
The petitioner’s counsel, , contended that the banners were in accordance with the permission granted by the for the law course. He submitted that the Trust was ready to replace any offensive imagery, provided the Panchayat identified the objectionable portions. The petitioner’s primary concern was to protect its right to publicize the course without jeopardizing the institution’s recognition.
The State, represented by , did not oppose the plea for a reasonable time to comply. The court, after examining photographs of the buntings, noted that they bore the image of a person “in what could be the attire prescribed for Advocates.”
BCI Rules: The Core of the Matter
The decisive factor was the Rules, which unequivocally prohibit any advertisement of an individual by an advocate. Justice Shyam Prasad observed:
“The Rules would be against any advertisement of an individual.”
The court further remarked that the buntings, with their imagery of a person in advocate’s robes, could potentially violate these . The petitioner’s counsel then offered to replace the banners with ones that only highlighted the law course and the institution, without any person’s image—even a student’s—to avoid any rule violation.
Court’s Direction: Replace, Don’t Deface
Rather than permit the Panchayat to take , the court crafted a balanced remedy. It directed the Panchayat Development Officer to defer action for eight weeks. During this period, the Trust was given the liberty to replace all existing banners with new ones that strictly contain details of the law degree course and the institution, without any emphasis on any person.
The court’s order is explicit:
“The petitioner is reserved with liberty to replace the buntings with the buntings that have details of the Law Degree Course and Institution.”
8 Weeks to Comply and Reconsider
The Trust must file an confirming the replacement with the Panchayat. Once compliance is shown, the second respondent—the Panchayat Development Officer—shall reconsider the matter without hindering the Bar Council’s permission or the agreement with the institution. The court emphasized that the Panchayat “cannot be precipitous in bringing about a termination of the petitioner’s right” merely because of the banners.
This ruling clarifies that while educational institutions have a right to promote their courses, such promotion cannot conflict with the ’s . The eight-week window balances the need for compliance with the practical challenges of replacing the artwork. For the law college, the message is clear: advertise the degree, not the advocate.
