Madhya Pradesh High Court examines the legality of celebrity-endorsed advertisements promoting online legal services, addressing concerns over misleading promotions, commercialization of advocacy, and BCI rules violations.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Indore: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently agreed to hear a petition challenging the growing trend of sponsored advertisements and celebrity endorsements promoting online legal services. The matter raises serious questions about the commercialization of the legal profession and adherence to ethical standards outlined by the Bar Council of India (BCI).
Background of the Case
A bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai issued notices to the respondents in the case and scheduled the next hearing for October 27.
The dispute is advertisements circulating on platforms like YouTube and Instagram, featuring a popular actor portraying a judicial persona. These ads reportedly urge viewers to purchase pre-packaged online legal services, claiming to offer “the best legal solutions at fixed prices.”
Legal Concerns Raised
The petitioners, a group of concerned lawyers, contend that such advertisements are misleading and undermine the dignity of the legal profession. They argue that reducing advocacy to a marketable e-commerce product is in direct violation of Rules 36 and 37 of the BCI Rules, which strictly prohibit advertising, solicitation, and commercial promotion by advocates.
According to the plea:
- A cease-and-desist notice was first issued to YouTube on January 10, 2025.
- On February 21, the platform denied the applicability of the Advocates Act.
- Subsequently, the petitioners lodged a detailed complaint before the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the State Bar Council, which failed to take action.
As a result, the lawyers approached the High Court to seek judicial intervention.
Prayers of the Petition:
The plea filed through advocates Prashant Upadhyay, Harsh Kushwaha, and Prashant Yadav seeks several directions from the court, including:
- Immediate removal of all sponsored advertisements, reels, and promotional content soliciting legal work.
- Monitoring and preventive measures by the BCI, State Bar Council, and relevant Union ministries to curb the recurrence of such ads.
- Accountability of platforms like YouTube and Instagram for hosting and monetizing illegal content, citing the Madras High Court ruling in PN Vignesh v. Bar Council of India (2024), which held that intermediaries cannot claim blanket safe-harbour protections when unlawful content is promoted.
