The Supreme Court today ruled that legal services by advocates will not fall under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act and litigants cannot claim the same.
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal said that the legal profession is sui generis (unique) and cannot be compared with any other profession. It further added that the relationship between advocate and client indicates unique attributes since the client has direct control over the advocate.
The court also mentioned that lawyers have to respect client’s autonomy and are not entitled to make concessions without instructions from client and transgress authority. It added that a considerable amount of direct control is with the client of the advocate. It concluded that lawyers stand excluded from the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, and that the contract is of personal service and is excluded from definition of service under CPA.
Notably, the Court ruled in its 1996 decision in Indian Medical Association v. Shanta on medical negligence would need to be reconsidered. The judgment had held that medical professionals would be accountable under the Consumer Protection Act and that the definition of services under the Act would cover the healthcare and medical sector.
The court stated that the very purpose of the Act was to protect consumers from unfair trade practices, but nothing to suggest the legislature wanted to include professionals. Therefore, it said that the issue regarding the same be placed before the Chief Justice of India to be referred to a larger bench.
The matter regarding lawyers’ services arose from a 2007 verdict of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that observed that such services come under the Act’s purview, while noting that the monetary contract between a client and their lawyer is bilateral.
The apex court had on April 13, 2009, stayed the NCDRC ruling. The appellants, 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 in the case.
The proceedings saw some interesting questions posed on what forum has to adjudicate on deficiency in legal services provided by lawyers.
The advocate for the Bar Council of India (BCI) had stated that advocates perform a sovereign function, and that pleadings have to strictly be in line with what the client wishes. Furthermore, Justice Mithal had highlighted that the BCI rules do not mention the term negligence or any consequences for the same. Justice Trivedi had stated that medicine is as noble a profession as law.
The bench had further raised queries as to why lawyers would not come under the ambit of the Act if doctors and medical professionals do. It verbally remarked that 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 does not come into the picture at all, adding that a court can always decide whether it is professional misconduct or negligence.
It further remarked that it cannot bar litigants from filing false proceedings against lawyers whose services they were unhappy with. It had mentioned that civil suits can be filed against advocates regardless of the mechanism of filing complaints with bar councils.