On Thursday, Supreme Court is presently engaged in a deliberation on the pivotal issue of whether advocates can be deemed liable under the Consumer Protection Act, a matter originating from a 2007 pronouncement by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Senior Advocate V Giri posits that lawyers, acting in the capacity of agents within the courtroom, should not be categorically classified as service providers.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, in a recent hearing on February 29, considered a critical issue regarding whether advocates can be held accountable under the Consumer Protection Act for service deficiencies. Justice Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal presided over the matter, which originated from a 2007 judgment by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Commission had ruled that legal services provided by lawyers are covered under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act.
Senior Advocate V Giri, serving as the amicus curiae in this matter, presented compelling arguments before the bench. Giri drew attention to the distinction between lawyers engaged for court appearances and those sought for legal services like opinions, consultations, and drafting agreements.
ALSO READ:Lawyers “Browbeating” Angers Gujarat High Court Judge
Giri emphasized-
“The advocate is the agent of the party. His acts and statements, made within the limits of authority given to him, are the acts and statements of the principal i.e. the party who engaged him.”
He further invoked legal precedents, including Byram Pestonji Gariwala vs Union Bank Of India and Salil Dutta V/s. T.M. and M.C. Private Ltd., to reinforce the agent-principal relationship between lawyers and their clients.
Giri also delved into the authority-agency status of lawyers, stating-
“The law is now well settled that a lawyer must be specifically authorised to settle and compromise a claim, that merely on the basis of his employment he has no implied or ostensible authority to bind his client to a compromise/ settlement.”
The Giri’s argument centered on the distinction between a lawyer acting on behalf of a client in court and providing services outside the courtroom. He asserted that when representing a client in court, a lawyer acts as an agent, and the relationship transcends that of a service provider and consumer.
ALSO READ:Supreme Court: Litigants Cannot Be Prevented from Filing False Civil Cases Against Lawyers
Giri clarified-
“Outside the Court, I am not entitled, outside the Court, I do not have this immunity.”
He highlighted the nuanced differences, stating that a lawyer’s immunity does not extend beyond the courtroom, especially when acting as an agent outside legal proceedings.
Giri questioned the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act, particularly the adequacy of a summary procedure for addressing negligence claims against lawyers. He raised concerns about parallel proceedings, where the lawyer’s negligence could be adjudicated separately from the main case, leading to potential conflicts in findings.
Senior Advocate Manoj Swarup, representing the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, underscored the need for the bar to remain independent. He referenced legal precedents, such as R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar General Of The High Court., to emphasize the statutory assurance of the bar’s independence.
As the Supreme Court reserves judgment on the liability of advocates under the Consumer Protection Act, the legal fraternity awaits a landmark decision. The arguments presented by Senior Advocate V Giri and others shed light on the intricacies of the lawyer-client relationship, distinguishing between courtroom and non-courtroom roles.
