The Supreme Court of India is reviewing whether legal representation should be classified as a “service” under the Consumer Protection Act, potentially making lawyers liable for deficiencies. The case raises questions about accountability, with lawyers arguing for their unique professional standing.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Supreme Court is currently in deliberation over whether lawyers can be held accountable in consumer courts for perceived shortcomings in their services. This discussion arises in light of a noteworthy statistic provided by the Bar Council of India, highlighting that the country is home to more than 1.3 million lawyers.
The Supreme Court’s examination originates from a set of petitions that question the idea that providing legal representation for a fee should be considered a “service” under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Enhances Security Measures Following Bomb Threat
The bench, comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, initiated the proceedings with a critical comparison, questioning,
“You (lawyer) have to also employ your skills and knowledge in the facts of that case… like a doctor does with a patient. How is it any different from a doctor?”
This comparison underscores the central theme of the debate: whether the legal profession’s service nature equates to that of medical professionals, thereby warranting similar consumer protection scrutiny.
The current legal discussions are centered around the pivotal 2007 judgment delivered by the National Consumer Commission, which unequivocally classified legal services under the umbrella of the Consumer Protection Act. This interpretation implies that lawyers, much like other service providers who charge fees, may be subject to accountability in consumer courts for any perceived deficiencies in the services they provide. This ongoing discourse holds significant importance in elucidating the status of the legal profession as a recognized “service” within the framework of consumer protection regulations.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Criticizes High Courts for invoking Section 482 of CrPC in the Rarest of Circumstances
The commission’s stance was clear:
“Undisputedly, lawyers are rendering service. They are charging fees. It is not a contract of personal service. Therefore, there is no reason to hold that they are not covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.”
However, this perspective encountered opposition within the legal community, leading to the Supreme Court issuing a stay on the commission’s judgment in April 2009. Senior counsel Narender Hooda, representing the appellants, which included various lawyer bodies, contested the rationale presented by the commission.
Hooda emphasized the unique position of lawyers, who act as officers of the court, arguing,
“The first duty of a lawyer is towards the court since he has to act as an officer of the court. There is no one-to-one relationship that a lawyer has with his clients. Further, success in a case does not depend only on the skills of a lawyer but it will depend on courts.”
The bench, however, emphasized situations in which a lawyer’s absence or negligence could directly jeopardize a client’s interests, questioning Hooda’s distinction between legal and medical professions. The court raised a specific example, stating-
“If a lawyer does not remain present in the court and an ex parte decree is passed against his client. The lawyer does not even tell his client why the case was dismissed. Who will be responsible for this? For this kind of negligence, the court doesn’t come in the picture at all.”
The discussion also touched upon the existing mechanisms under The Advocates Act for addressing lawyer misconduct, with the bench noting the distinction between negligence and misconduct. This distinction is crucial in understanding whether legal professionals should also fall under consumer protection laws, similar to medical practitioners who are regulated under the Medical Council of India Act yet are still accountable under consumer laws.
Hooda’s defense, highlighting the public nature of legal proceedings as opposed to the private setting of medical operations, was met with skepticism by the bench. The court’s response underscored the universal challenge of frivolous or false cases across professions, indicating a potential leaning towards equal accountability for lawyers under consumer protection statutes.
ALSO READ: First Conviction in Bandit Phoolan Devi’s Gang Massacre After 43 Years
As the hearing adjourns, with further arguments expected from senior counsel V Giri as amicus curiae, the legal fraternity and the public keenly await a decision that could significantly impact the dynamics between lawyers and their clients.
This case not only revisits the contractual relationship between a lawyer and a client, as outlined by the national commission, but also challenges the longstanding perception of legal services’ immunity from consumer court scrutiny.
