Today(on 14th May),The Supreme Court declared that legal services provided by lawyers are exempt from the Consumer Protection Act, emphasizing the unique nature of the advocate-client relationship.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today(on 14th May),has declared that legal services provided by lawyers will not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The bench, comprising of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, emphasized that the legal profession is unique and cannot be equated with other professions.
The court acknowledged the distinctive nature of the advocate-client relationship, highlighting that the client exercises direct control over the advocate.
The bench stated-
“Advocates must adhere to client autonomy and refrain from making concessions without explicit instructions, respecting the client’s authority. The client holds significant direct control over the advocate’s actions.”
Consequently, the court concluded that legal services should be excluded from the Consumer Protection Act.
The judgment emphasized-
“This further solidifies our belief that contracts involving personal services are not encompassed within the definition of services outlined in the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).”
In addition to this ruling, the Supreme Court also declared that its previous decision in the 1996 case of Indian Medical Association v. Shanta, which held medical professionals accountable under the Consumer Protection Act, needs to be reconsidered. The court stated that the purpose of the Act was to protect consumers from unfair trade practices and there is nothing to suggest that the legislature intended to include professionals.
The court remarked-
“With that being said, we hold the view that a reconsideration of the IMA vs. Shanta decision is warranted.”
As a result, the court has decided to refer the matter to a larger bench, and the issue regarding lawyers’ services will be placed before the Chief Justice of India.
The dispute concerning lawyers’ services arose from a 2007 verdict of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which held that such services fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. However, the Supreme Court had stayed the NCDRC ruling on April 13, 2009.
The appellants in the case, the Bar of Indian Lawyers, were represented by Senior Advocate Narender Hooda and Advocate Jasbir Malik. Senior Advocate V Giri served as the Amicus Curiae.
During the hearings, the bench raised interesting questions regarding the adjudication of deficiencies in legal services provided by lawyers.
Justice Trivedi asked-
“Are you merely representing the interests of your client? Would you ever speak or act against those interests? After all, it is the client who retains your services.If a lawyer fails to appear or neglects to argue based on the grounds outlined in a civil suit, wouldn’t this be considered a lapse in service?”
The counsel for the Bar Council of India (BCI) argued that advocates perform a sovereign function, and their pleadings must strictly align with the client’s wishes. Justice Mithal also noted that the BCI rules do not mention the term negligence or outline any consequences for the same.
While discussing the medical profession, Justice Trivedi stated that medicine is as noble a profession as law. The bench also questioned why lawyers would not come under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act when doctors and medical professionals do.
The court orally remarked-
“If a lawyer fails to appear in court, leading to an ex-parte decree against their client, and neglects to explain the dismissal reasons to the client, accountability arises. Who should be held responsible for such negligence? While the court may not directly intervene in such matters, it retains the authority to assess whether such conduct constitutes professional misconduct or negligence.”
Furthermore, the court clarified that it cannot prevent litigants from filing false proceedings against lawyers whose services they were dissatisfied with. It reiterated that civil suits can be filed against advocates, irrespective of the mechanism of filing complaints with bar councils.
Case Title:
Bar of Indian Lawyers v. DK Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and anr.
