In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India found itself grappling with the question of whether legal services provided by advocates should be governed by the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. The bench, led by Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, made noteworthy observations during the hearing, sparking a debate on the nature of attorney-client relationships and the avenues available for addressing grievances against legal professionals.

The crux of the matter revolves around a 2007 verdict by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which asserted that legal services fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. The NCDRC emphasized the bilateral nature of the monetary contract between clients and their lawyers. However, the Supreme Court had previously stayed the NCDRC ruling on April 13, 2009, leading to the recent revisitation of the issue.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court remarked on the difficulty of preventing litigants from filing false proceedings against lawyers, even when they are dissatisfied with the services provided. Justice Trivedi pointed out the inherent challenge, stating, "Filing of cases cannot stop," highlighting the complexity of regulating the legal recourse taken by disgruntled clients.

The appellants, represented by Senior Advocate Narender Hooda and Advocate Jasbir Malik, argued that the remedy before a consumer forum is unnecessary, as litigants can already file complaints against lawyers with the Bar Council of India (BCI). They emphasized that the BCI and State Bar Councils are the competent authorities to handle complaints against legal practitioners.

Senior Advocate V Giri, acting as the amicus curiae in the case, added a layer to the argument by drawing a distinction between the advertising practices of doctors and lawyers. While acknowledging that doctors can advertise, Hooda argued that lawyers face restrictions, unable to give page-one advertisements or use media platforms for promotion.

The bench responded by expressing surprise at the absence of advertisements by lawyers, contrasting this with the common occurrence of advertisements by specialist doctors. The counsel for the appellants further emphasized the unique nature of the attorney-client relationship, stating that it cannot be equated with a typical service provider-consumer dynamic.

In a previous hearing, the bench raised questions about why lawyers should not be subject to the Consumer Protection Act when doctors and medical professionals are. The bench noted that the court could determine whether a lawyer's absence leading to an ex-parte decree amounted to professional misconduct or negligence.

The case is scheduled to continue on February 21, providing an opportunity for further arguments and insights into this intricate legal matter.

Case: Bar of Indian Lawyers v. DK Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and anr.