Introduction
A significant debate on professional ethics, media engagement by lawyers, and the limits of public commentary on pending cases unfolded before the Supreme Court of India on January 15, 2026. During the hearing of the Enforcement Directorate’s plea relating to the I-PAC raid in West Bengal, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta objected to lawyers discussing cases handled by them on public platforms such as press conferences and YouTube shows.
The objection led to a lively exchange involving Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi, touching upon the balance between *free speech, transparency of judicial proceedings, and the risk of narrative building during pending litigation.
This article analyses the Supreme Court exchange, the legal principles involved, and its broader implications for the legal profession and media discourse in India.
Background of the Case
The exchange occurred during the hearing of:
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) No. 16 of 2026
The matter concerns the ED’s plea over the I-PAC raid in West Bengal, a politically sensitive investigation that has already drawn considerable public and media attention.
While the Court was deliberating procedural aspects of the case, including timelines for oral arguments, the discussion unexpectedly shifted to the issue of lawyers’ public commentary on matters they are personally involved in.
Solicitor General’s Objection: Call for Restrictions
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested that a circular or directive should be issued prohibiting lawyers from discussing cases handled by them on public forums while the matter is sub judice. According to the SG:
- Lawyers participating in media interviews or public discussions risk creating narratives that may influence public perception.
- Such commentary, especially before a judgment is delivered, could undermine the sanctity of judicial proceedings.
- The concern was not personal to any individual advocate but applied broadly to all lawyers engaging with the media.
The SG clarified that his objection was specifically aimed at pending cases, where no final judicial pronouncement exists.
Kapil Sibal’s Response: Judgments Are Public Property
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, responding to the SG’s remarks, firmly asserted that:
- Court judgments, once delivered, become public property.
- Discussions on concluded cases are legally permissible and protected.
- Judicial transparency requires that judgments be debated, analysed, and critiqued in the public domain.
Sibal also raised a counterpoint regarding selective media leaks by investigative agencies, remarking that if lawyers are restrained from speaking publicly, agencies like the CBI and ED should also be barred from leaking information to favoured journalists.
In a lighter vein, Sibal referred to his YouTube programme “Dil Se with Kapil Sibal”, suggesting that the SG frequently raises objections due to displeasure over such public engagements.
Judicial Context: Reference to Supreme Court SOP
The discussion arose when Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra referred to the Supreme Court’s newly introduced Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), which mandates:
- Strict timelines for oral arguments in post-notice and regular hearing matters.
- Greater judicial efficiency and reduced delays.
While the SOP itself does not address media commentary by lawyers, its mention set the stage for a broader conversation on discipline, restraint, and professionalism in court-related conduct.
Distinction Between Pending and Decided Cases
A key legal distinction emerged during the exchange:
1. Decided Cases
- Once a judgment is pronounced, it becomes public property.
- Lawyers, academics, journalists, and citizens are free to analyse and critique it.
- This principle is well-established in constitutional jurisprudence and free speech law.
2. Pending Cases
- The SG argued that public commentary during pendency may lead to:
- Narrative building
- Trial by media
- Potential prejudice to parties or institutions
- The concern is heightened in politically sensitive or high-profile cases.
Sibal acknowledged the legal principle but accused the SG of selectively invoking it while ignoring agency-driven media narratives.
Intervention by A.M. Singhvi
Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi added a lighter remark, suggesting that the SG’s objection was inadvertently giving free publicity to Kapil Sibal’s YouTube channel. While humorous, the comment underscored how media platforms have become integral to modern legal discourse.
Broader Legal and Ethical Implications
1. Freedom of Speech vs. Fair Trial
The issue raises a classic constitutional tension between:
- Article 19(1)(a) – freedom of speech and expression
- Fair administration of justice and avoidance of prejudice
While lawyers do not lose their free speech rights, they are also bound by professional ethics and court decorum.
2. Professional Conduct of Advocates
The Bar Council of India Rules require advocates to:
- Maintain dignity of the profession
- Avoid conduct that interferes with judicial proceedings
However, there is no explicit prohibition on discussing cases publicly, especially post-judgment.
3. Selective Media Leaks
Sibal’s remark highlights a persistent concern:
- Investigative agencies often influence public opinion through unofficial briefings.
- Regulating only lawyers, without addressing agency leaks, may create unequal standards.
Is a Blanket Ban Feasible?
A blanket prohibition on lawyers speaking about cases may face constitutional and practical challenges:
- It could be viewed as disproportionate restriction on free speech.
- Differentiating between legal analysis and narrative building is inherently subjective.
- Academic discussion, legal journalism, and public legal education could be affected.
A more nuanced approach may involve:
- Clear guidelines distinguishing commentary on facts, law, and advocacy
- Emphasis on restraint in pending matters
- Equal accountability for investigative agencies.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court exchange between the Solicitor General and senior advocates like Kapil Sibal highlights an evolving challenge in India’s legal system: how to balance open legal discourse with the integrity of pending judicial proceedings.
While judgments are undeniably public property, the question of commentary during pendency remains unsettled. As digital platforms, podcasts, and YouTube channels increasingly shape legal conversations, courts and regulators may soon be required to evolve clear, constitutionally sound guidelines.
For now, the debate reflects a judiciary grappling with the realities of a media-driven legal ecosystem—where transparency, ethics, and free speech must coexist without undermining justice.
Also Read
5th NUJS International Client Counselling Competition 2026 at NUJS Kolkata, Register by 25 Jan!
