The Supreme Court (SC) recently ruled in the case of Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases that advocates practising in the legal profession cannot be sued under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“CPA”).
Key points of decision
- This ruling implies that clients who are dissatisfied with their lawyers, cannot seek the remedy provided for deficiency of services under the CPA.
- Lawyers would still be liable under the Advocates Act of 1961, Bar Council rules, and other laws as applicable.
- There is a difference between ‘business’ or ‘trade’ on the one hand, and ‘profession’ on the other, inasmuch the former is a purely commercial endeavour while the latter is a result of advanced learning and specialised study.
- The legal profession is sui generis i.e. unique since lawyers have a duty to the court and society in addition to their client, and thus play an integral role in upholding the judicial system.
- The CPA provides remedies to the consumer for defective goods and deficient services. However, the definition of ‘service’ under the CPA specifically excludes a contract of personal service.
- The Court noted that advocates are agents of the client and could not to go beyond the wishes of the client in their representation before courts or substitute their own judgment in place of the client’s instructions. Thus, clients exercise a considerable amount of direct control over the advocate they have engaged for a particular case.
- Though an advocate provided a ‘service’ to the client, such services were in the nature of a contract ‘of personal service’ (as opposed to a contract ‘for personal service’) and would therefore stand excluded from the CPA.
- Since lawyers do not provide a service, as defined, they could not be held liable for a deficiency in service.
